That They Be One

[OBW]

I was just reading a verse for unrelated purposes the other day and saw something I did not expect.

John 17:22. "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one."

Does this reveal something about the oneness of God that is not quite like saying they are jointly one person?

Where is the oneness in these verses? Looking at the surrounding verses, it would appear to be something common inside of each of the persons mentioned, not that they are simply the person next to them.

Still doesn't answer all the questions. But I wonder if this puts a hole in any kind of Jesus is now the Holy Spirit talk.

And a couple of years ago or so when we got into a discussion of the oneness of God in terms of Jesus dying on the cross. There was some discussion that God the Father could not actually turn away from the Son. I wonder if that was a correct analysis. The Father did not die on the cross. Neither did the Spirit. It was the Son.

Still doesn't answer all the questions.

But I'm asking.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

I was just reading a verse for unrelated purposes the other day and saw something I did not expect.

John 17:22. "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one."

Does this reveal something about the oneness of God that is not quite like saying they are jointly one person?

Where is the oneness in these verses? Looking at the surrounding verses, it would appear to be something common inside of each of the persons mentioned, not that they are simply the person next to them.

Still doesn't answer all the questions. But I wonder if this puts a hole in any kind of Jesus is now the Holy Spirit talk.

And a couple of years ago or so when we got into a discussion of the oneness of God in terms of Jesus dying on the cross. There was some discussion that God the Father could not actually turn away from the Son. I wonder if that was a correct analysis. The Father did not die on the cross. Neither did the Spirit. It was the Son.

Still doesn't answer all the questions.

But I'm asking.

It appears to me that oneness is vouchsafed. But then, I don't know what is meant by glory.

[Dancing]

Great question about the oneness.
Just some truth tid-bits and thoughts. In Hebrew the same word is the word for honour and glory. Kavod. It's primary meaning is "weight" which translates out to "value" in Biblical times.
This context (John 17) says that this is the honor(glory) the Father and Son hold for one another. Their appreciation for one another is perfect. They are in complete oneness. It's this appreciation, this "love", which (I believe this passage supports) is the glory(honor) the Son says He had with the Father before the world began (v. 24), which He prays we will have for one another, which will also make us one.

This has such profound implications for our personal relationships. We cannot love the unlovely except we know Him. (I can't even love myself otherwise) But His love is the greatest glory and honor we can bestow on another. And we know it's what will inevitably draw men to Him, into oneness with Him and us all.

[Dancing]

Sorry. This doesn't really address your question about their "jointness" or connection. But maybe it does....
How can they be the same person? The Bible just doesn't support WL's teachings which to me are mere mental acrobatics. I simply see it as being one of the mysteries which should be enjoyed more than understood at this point in our experience. The Bible shows they are distinct but one.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Dancing

Sorry. This doesn't really address your question about their "jointness" or connection. But maybe it does....
How can they be the same person? The Bible just doesn't support WL's teachings which to me are mere mental acrobatics. I simply see it as being one of the mysteries which should be enjoyed more than understood at this point in our experience. The Bible shows they are distinct but one.

I might agree that it does not direclty address the question.

Except that it does address the question about whether to say that God is "one person" is really supportable. I know I like that kind of speaking. But I am now not so sure that is it really supportable.

And all the other verses that I have come up with (probably far from all that should be considered) do not seem to need it to be one way or the other. They just speak to what they speak to, not to this issue.

So maybe that description of the Trinity that mentions "persons" (plural) with respect to the Father, Son, and Spirit, but no mention of "person" with respect to the singularity/oneness of God is not as faulty as we might have thought.

My consideration of the One God is not diminished by this. I do not find fault in the general descriptions of God as a result. Just a different possible understanding of what some of it means.

[Amcasci]

Originally Posted by OBW

I might agree that it does not direclty address the question.

Except that it does address the question about whether to say that God is "one person" is really supportable. I know I like that kind of speaking. But I am now not so sure that is it really supportable.

And all the other verses that I have come up with (probably far from all that should be considered) do not seem to need it to be one way or the other. They just speak to what they speak to, not to this issue.

So maybe that description of the Trinity that mentions "persons" (plural) with respect to the Father, Son, and Spirit, but no mention of "person" with respect to the singularity/oneness of God is not as faulty as we might have thought.

My consideration of the One God is not diminished by this. I do not find fault in the general descriptions of God as a result. Just a different possible understanding of what some of it means.

The ancient language of One Divine Being or Substance but three distinct Persons is as good as it gets in this age. This language has stood the test of time and is the standard language for orthodox churches throughout the world. We do not have to reinvent the wheel. Lee thrived on iconoclasm and novelty. I rest in the arms of what has been accepted through the centuries and is still received by orthodox churches....ONE SUBSTANCE...THREE PERSONS...Blessed Trinity!

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

John 17:22. "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one."

Does this reveal something about the oneness of God that is not quite like saying they are jointly one person?

Where is the oneness in these verses? Looking at the surrounding verses, it would appear to be something common inside of each of the persons mentioned, not that they are simply the person next to them. Still doesn't answer all the questions. But I wonder if this puts a hole in any kind of Jesus is now the Holy Spirit talk.

And a couple of years ago or so when we got into a discussion of the oneness of God in terms of Jesus dying on the cross. There was some discussion that God the Father could not actually turn away from the Son. I wonder if that was a correct analysis. The Father did not die on the cross. Neither did the Spirit. It was the Son.

WL took logic and ran it across the Bible, and in so doing found that he could discard millennia of Christian understanding of scripture. Here's the logic train we got presented with, as I remember it. "Hear, O Israel, The LORD your God is one God, and you shall have no other gods besides." So there is one God.

Next: "In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was God, and was with God... and became flesh". So the one God became incarnated in the Son.

Next: "The Last Adam became the (a?) Life-Giving Spirit." So the one God, Jesus, is now the Holy Spirit.

Next: "There is one body and one Spirit, in which you were called in one hope, one Lord, one faith, one baptism..." So there can only be one Spirit. There cannot be more than one spirit.

So when John, on Patmos, sent greetings to the seven Asian churches, from Him who is and who was and who was to come, that was of course Jesus Himself on the throne, and from the seven flames burning before the throne, that was also Jesus, who is the Holy Spirit, sevenfold intensified, and from the One walking in the midst of the seven lampstands before the throne who's also, naturally, Jesus. So Jesus is simultaneously on the throne, burning in front of the throne (in seven places no less), and walking around in the midst of the seven lamps burning in front of the throne?

To me this contradicts everything we know about language, and how language conveys understanding. There's no indication whatsoever that John meant this writing to indicate something like that. Only WL's logic dictated that, so the apostle John had to be put in his proper place. But in so doing, I argue that the imagery of Revelation chapter 1 becomes nonsensical in WL's hands. My only question is: how could so many otherwise intelligent people sit through that kind of treatment? The only conclusion that I can come to is that we had to surmise that the apostle John hadn't carefully read through Paul's epistles (as WL had) and wrote in ignorant error, and this error persisted for centuries until WL came along and set everything right.

But I really doubt that. Instead, I see WL using logic like using a bulldozer to drive through a flower garden. And what a mangled mass he left behind; behold, all things are made new, indeed! The Bible got "processed" for us.

Originally Posted by Amcasci

The foundation of Lee's doctrine is his understanding of the Trinity!. Lee teaches "modalism," the idea that there is one God who reveals Himself in three different modes or stages. ...Lee's teaching destroys the distinction of persons in the Godhead.

In Revelation chapter 1 you can see the full effect of WL's teaching. All the details are dissolved. It's all just Jesus. It's all the Son. The Father is the Son. The Spirit is the Son. The seven churches, which are the Body of Christ, are the Son. The seven lamps are the Son. Maybe the seven angels, who are spirits, are really the Son (we know there can be only one Spirit, and that is Jesus. Ignore the number seven). Should I stop now, or should we keep going?

[TLFisher]

Originally Posted by OBW

I was just reading a verse for unrelated purposes the other day and saw something I did not expect.

John 17:22. "I have given them the glory that you gave me, that they may be one as we are one."

Does this reveal something about the oneness of God that is not quite like saying they are jointly one person?

LSM/LC theology of this verse is for any Christian who wants to be one as the Father, Son, and Spirit are one, you have to be one with LSM fellowship. That is more or less of what I was once told.