Triune God, modalism, or are you heretic?

KSA · 07-12-2008, 01:07 AM

Here I would like to discuss the teachings of LC about God. It is a hot topic and therefore needs to be addressed fairly. First of all, I would say that Witness Lee teaching on God differed from common teaching. I think all of us who came to LC found his teaching new - something we hardly heard in Christianity. Now, I am not saying at present that his teachings were not biblical - this we will figure out together. I am saying they were different.

Okay, I do not have time right now for a large post; therefore I'll start with one point for starters. It would be a good beginning.

Witness Lee differed in his teaching that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the entire Triune God - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Most common teaching is that Jesus was the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity - the Son.

Now your thoughts, please...

YP0534 · 07-12-2008, 05:47 AM

I always have been and still today now remain very comfortable with the idea that the moderator of a public forum may one day conspire with others, likeminded or not, to have me burned at the stake for rejecting the historical prescribed dogma of Roman Catholicsm and all of its many multiplied descendents and instead accepting each and every one of Lee's teachings on the topic of the Trinity where they are plainly founded on the Bible.

Therefore, I'd propose a shift in this inquiry:

We should concern ourselves with the question of whether Lee's teachings are in conformity with the scriptures and also whether the "common teachings" themselves are in conformity with the scriptures.

My impression is that the dusty old doctrines and creeds of the so-called "Church" are of little to no value in living the reality of the Christian life. If you think they are, then don't call me a Christian if that makes you happy. It is no problem to be different from all the world if all the world is simply wrong.

Although I'd concede that Lee got a little loose sometimes in his speaking and that looseness caused him trouble in terms of valid criticism, the ridiculous charges of heresy should be at last put to rest by serious review and comment outside of the "Affirmation and Critique" blind defense of Lee's doctrine.

In other words, we can look at issues surrounding "Persons" and "hypostases" and "co-exist and co-inhere" until the Lord returns but that wouldn't really benefit anyone and none of that is fundamentally the Bible anyway. And I for one have absolutely no interest in the topic.

Garbage from Lee is no better or worse than garbage from Augustine.

Like I said. Kindle the fires.

Otherwise, this is my sole contribution:

Yes, Lee taught differently from the "common teachings."

Definitely, yes.

OBW · 07-12-2008, 08:18 AM

I think that it is in an inquiry like this that we will discover the dogmas of the historical teachings of Christianity, both RCC and Protestant, to be incomplete. Many of us were seeing something of this in the last month of interplay with the BARM’s super-moderators.

Without going into the details, after reading the BARM statement on the Trinity over a year ago (written by abugian, I believe) I noticed that it was well written and consistent with most other such writings I have seen previously. But it was mostly dismissive of the verses that demonstrate the oneness and interplay of the Three that are One.

There is something mysterious about a “three” with one image. About a God from whom there is stated to be “one Spirit” (Ephesians) yet the references to the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord (in a discussion about the resurrected Christ).

For all my ranting about the errors of Lee, I remember him on more than one occasion referencing the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary’s statement to the effect that we must be careful in the use of the term “person” when describing the Trinity or risk the possibility of falling into the error of tritheism. (I wish someone could find that reference and verify that it was not out of context. Lee was great at taking things out of context.)

When you read the words of the BARM on the subject, you are impressed with a God of three persons that share an essence. They stand on the fence the separates Trinitarian from tritheist while holding onto a thin chord called “essence” to keep from falling onto the wrong side. My observation is that Lee mostly did just the opposite, using virtually all of his breath to describe the singular aspects of the One God, holding ever so loosely onto the belief that the event described at Jesus’ baptism was more than some parlor trick to give the illusion of three.

There is something mysterious about this God who is fully three and fully one. For any who say that those words are not in scripture, I agree. But neither are the words spoken by the “separate persons” crowd or those who would make God into a singular who transitioned his appearance over time. Each position is like a man describing a skyscraper from a singular vantage point. For each perspective, there is something different to see. While none are wrong, none are entirely correct because they can only see a part.

From the vantage point of God as three, it is well established that the second ─ the Son ─ “became flesh.” But seeing that One was also seeing the Father, not just seeing someone with a resemblance to the Father. That means that the very three/one dichotomy makes even this straightforward question somewhat ambiguous. I would say that the record is that the Son became flesh, but that all of the Godhead dwelt in Him. It is a subject upon which the correct answers would seem to be equivocation due to reality of those answers being outside of the understanding and experience of man. Our understanding is limited by the bounds of physics, biology, chemistry, time, and even philosophy and imagination because God is outside those constraints.

YP0534 · 07-12-2008, 09:21 AM

Lee's statement:

Quote:

"Griffith Thomas, the writer of the best exposition on Romans, said in his book, Principles of Theology, ‘‘The term Person is also sometimes objected to. It certainly must not be pressed too far, or it will lead to Tritheism ... While we are compelled to use terms like ‘substance’ and ‘Person,’ we are not to think of them as identical with what we understand as human substance and personality ... The truth of the experience of the Trinity is not dependent upon theological terminology.’’ Griffith Thomas also said that our human language is inadequate to explain this divine mystery. We lack the language, the utterance, and the terms. We are short of the proper understanding of this divine mystery." LS Genesis, Message 30

This seems to be the source: William Henry Griffith Thomas, The Principles of Theology (New York:Longmans, Green, & Co., 1930), p. 31.

Timotheist · 07-12-2008, 09:30 AM

I agree with these sentiments about the Triune God teachings posted thus far in this thread:

1) The 'orthodox' dogma is flawed, or incomplete
2) Lee's teachings are 'scriptural', but also flawed, or incomplete

Now about "modalsim"

I don't think John was seeing a "sevenfold, intensified, Spirit". Rather, these seven spirits can be found in non-canonical texts: they are the seven Arch-Angels.

To me the Spirit that breathed life into Adam is the same Spirit that is breathed into new testament believers. The difference lies in the degree of God's "presence". The Holy Spirit is a stronger degree of God's presence than the first:

1) The Spirit gives life: the Holy Spirit gives holy life
2) The Spirit gives a human his life: the Holy Spirit gives eternal life.

The Spirit did not have to "change" to become a life-giving Spirit. Rather the dose was increased, this made somehow possible by the redemption of the cross.

But I find it interesting that Christ took his resurrected body with Him to heaven and was described as seated on the "right hand" of God. What happened?

1) Did Christ sit at the right hand before His incarnation?
2) Or did having a Body make Him a separate entity (or at least more separate than before)?

I have spent some time looking into Jewish apocrypha trying to see any evidence of two thrones or a twofold Godhead of Father and Son. Recently I found this reference and will one day do some more research on it. It appears that there is a somewhat controversial passage (to Jews) in the Talmud that refers to a 'greater Yahweh' and a 'lesser Yahweh'. There is an introduction to this subject in Wikipedia at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron

The description seems to paint a 'Co-existing but separable' God on the Throne.

Check it out!

KSA · 07-13-2008, 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

I always have been and still today now remain very comfortable with the idea that the moderator of a public forum may one day conspire with others, likeminded or not, to have me burned at the stake for rejecting the historical prescribed dogma of Roman Catholicsm and all of its many multiplied descendents and instead accepting each and every one of Lee's teachings on the topic of the Trinity where they are plainly founded on the Bible.

Therefore, I'd propose a shift in this inquiry:

We should concern ourselves with the question of whether Lee's teachings are in conformity with the scriptures and also whether the "common teachings" themselves are in conformity with the scriptures.

That is exactly what I proposed. To compare with the Scriptures! I mentioned "common teaching" for a certain reason. On the one hand, LC and BB claim that their teaching on God is within Orthodoxy and therefore deny accusations in heresy. On the other hand, they claim that the Orthodox view is deficient, and say that their teaching is according to the "pure Word". So before comparing LC's teachings on God with Scripture, I thought it would be profitable to see where their teachings stand regarding the common teachings in Christianity. As I have stated in my first point offered for discussion, Witness Lee differed from Christianity in his belief that Christ was the incarnation of the entire Triune God, when other Christians commonly teach that Christ was the incarnation of the second Person of Trinity - the Son. Now we have to find out what teaching is scriptural. I would suggest that we should go point by point. Let this point be the first. We can come to other points - like modalism - later. So what are your thoughts regarding this point?

Quote:

My impression is that the dusty old doctrines and creeds of the so-called "Church" are of little to no value in living the reality of the Christian life. If you think they are, then don't call me a Christian if that makes you happy. It is no problem to be different from all the world if all the world is simply wrong.

I wouldn't brush creeds away so quickly. I agree that creeds are not the Word of God and are not infallible. We base our faith on the Word of God, not the creeds. However, creeds express certain stages of the church development. It is good to take them into consideration and not act too independently. We do not exist in vacuum. We have 2000 years of church history - and this history is not worthless - we may learn a lot from history, both from its achievements and its failures.

Quote:

In other words, we can look at issues surrounding "Persons" and "hypostases" and "co-exist and co-inhere" until the Lord returns but that wouldn't really benefit anyone and none of that is fundamentally the Bible anyway. And I for one have absolutely no interest in the topic.

I somewhat agree with you here, but not fully. Our Christian life hinges upon our knowledge of God. Therefore, we should try to know God both spiritually and intellectually. We will never get the full answers, but we will grow in the knowledge of the Lord. And the matter of hypostasis is actually quite important, when we come to it. So I hope in the future to ignite your interest in this topic.

YP0534 · 07-13-2008, 03:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

I wouldn't brush creeds away so quickly. I agree that creeds are not the Word of God and are not infallible. We base our faith on the Word of God, not the creeds. However, creeds express certain stages of the church development. It is good to take them into consideration and not act too independently. We do not exist in vacuum. We have 2000 years of church history - and this history is not worthless - we may learn a lot from history, both from its achievements and its failures.

I somewhat agree with you here, but not fully. Our Christian life hinges upon our knowledge of God. Therefore, we should try to know God both spiritually and intellectually. We will never get the full answers, but we will grow in the knowledge of the Lord. And the matter of hypostasis is actually quite important, when we come to it. So I hope in the future to ignite your interest in this topic.

I came to LC out of RCC via universalism a very long time ago. When that "Beliefs and Practices" thing came out, I was flabbergasted, although I suspended judgment for awhile since it seemed like it was pretty good.

I am not unaware of history and I seriously have no use for creeds whatsoever as a direct consequence.

I might be showing my LC roots when I say it, but, I had to laugh at the very notion of "church development." Sorry!

The only thing set in Nicea was rigor mortis.

The BARM favor credal formulae for good and self-evident reasons, I think. It took me about three weeks to be well past done over there.

I just hate to see people yet again drawn into the thicket.

But, whatchagonnado?

We are free in Christ to even hypostasis if we want to!

KSA · 07-14-2008, 01:51 AM

Ok YP0534, you do not like the topic.

Maybe someone else is interested. What do you think of the incarnation of Christ?

YP0534 · 07-14-2008, 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Ok YP0534, you do not like the topic.

Maybe someone else is interested. What do you think of the incarnation of Christ?

I think it's marvellous that Christ was incarnated as the mystery of God, don't you?

My!

I was watching a PBS show last night about the vastness of the universe and they were just going on and on about how vast the universe really is and about how we're on a speck of a planet and only on a thin surface layer of it.

That the very God who made the heavens and the earth would become confined within one of us teeny human beings in order to accomplish something mostly for our benefit is just beyond use of superlatives!

And that this One having passed through so many human experiences, even death itself, in order to get into and grow in all of us? My heart is racing just a little bit writing this! Too wonderful for words really!

PRAISE THE LORD!

HALLELUJAH!

KSA · 07-16-2008, 06:05 AM

It seems nobody is interested in this thread

Only by Grace · 07-16-2008, 08:44 AM

OK, KSA...I like this thread, but being as I'm not an expert on LC theology as taught by Lee, and I'm not a biblical apologist, but rather, your run of the mill evangelical, born again Christian...let me just pull something from another thread that was stated that sounds "off" to me. Something that Lee taught that doesn't align with what I've been "taught" or read from the Bible myself.

Quote:

"Ultimately, of course, our destiny is to blended and mingled with one another and the Triune God unto the eternal consummation of God's eternal purpose."

I don't believe that is my destiny. I don't believe the Bible teaches this as our destiny. I don't expect to be blended and mingled with one another and the Triune God...even though you're all nice folks and all.

I believe that we are here on this planet to please Him, give glory to Him, to worship Him and to share the wonderful news of salvation by grace by faith in Jesus Christ. THEN, I believe in the simplicity of Heaven...a wonderful, currently unknown-to-us place, where in spirit and with new glorified (individual) bodies, we will cast crowns at His "feet" (whatever form He has taken on) crying, Holy, Holy, Holy! (Yes, I know there will be other things we'll be "doing" -- but you know, no more cryin' there, no more pain, etc.)

So...how's that for starters? Or, does this go to another thread (a laymen's one?)...or, do the rotten tomatoes start getting tossed my way! Or maybe I should just back slowly out of the room and humbly and quietly head to another forum?

Ohio · 07-16-2008, 09:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

It seems nobody is interested in this thread

Wait a minute here ... I'm interested in reading what KSA has to say!

I suppose it's readily apparent that when we consider both the "teachings and practices" of the LC, that KSA leans towards the former, and I lean towards the latter. I can't help it. He can't either. Doctrines bore me. But ... I do like to read KSA's posts about them. For example, just this morning, I was driving through town and passed a Greek Orthodox Church, and I began to think about the many posts I read by KSA who presented an "eastern" view of theology, rather than my own "western" or RCC view.

My encouragement to KSA is this, don't look at the "replies" column, but rather look at the "views" column.

aron · 07-16-2008, 09:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

OK, KSA...I like this thread, but being as I'm not an expert on LC theology as taught by Lee, and I'm not a biblical apologist, but rather, your run of the mill evangelical, born again Christian...let me just pull something from another thread that was stated that sounds "off" to me. Something that Lee taught that doesn't align with what I've been "taught" or read from the Bible myself.

Quote: blended, mingled, consummated...etc

I don't belive that is my destiny. I don't believe the Bible teaches this as our destiny. I don't expect to be blended and mingled with one another and the Triune God...even though you're all nice folks and all.

I believe that we are here on this planet to please Him, give glory to Him, to worship Him and to share the wonderful news of salvation by grace by faith in Jesus Christ. THEN, I believe in the simplicity of Heaven...a wonderful, currently unknown-to-us place, where in spirit and with new glorified (individual) bodies, we will cast crowns at His "feet" (whatever form He has taken on) crying, Holy, Holy, Holy! (Yes, I know there will be other things we'll be "doing" -- but you know, no more cryin' there, no more pain, etc.)

So...how's that for starters? Or, does this go to another thread (a laymen's one?)...or, do the rotten tomatoes start getting tossed my way! Or maybe I should just back slowly out of the room and humbly and quietly head to another forum?

Actually, Grace, I wrote that tongue-in-cheek. It was a quote, not direct, but a mish-mash quote of the sayings that delineate the teachings of the 'Lord's Recovery' theology. Lee believed that and spoke it and got a lot of people to take his terminology as the equivalent of the gospel. However, the gospel to me is that I am a sinner who believed into the Lord Jesus Christ. Now, I endeavor to go on in this faith, which includes among other things receiving the believers who are alongside me. That includes you, among others, so please stay!

Sorry to throw you off by that quote. It needed some parenthetical thing, perhaps combined with smiley faces!

I have a dry sense of humor, sometimes too dry...

KSA, I don't understand this kind of theology, sorry. Lee didn't do a good job explaining it to me. No one has, so I suspect either I'm dull or it doesn't matter too much. I probably just haven't 'got it' yet.

KSA · 07-16-2008, 10:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Only by Grace

So...how's that for starters?

No, no, no

I'd like to first discuss the incarnation of Christ. Was Christ the incarnation of the entire Triune God or only of the Son? Let's stick to this for awhile. At present I am not interested in mingling and blending.

KSA · 07-16-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aron

KSA, I don't understand this kind of theology, sorry. Lee didn't do a good job explaining it to me. No one has, so I suspect either I'm dull or it doesn't matter too much. I probably just haven't 'got it' yet.

Okay, let me state my reasons for starting this thread. One of the major accusation against LC is that of modalism. However, I found out that those who set this accusation do not really know theology well. My discussion at the Bereans proved it. When we touch this matter two things usually come up: 1) Is Witness Lee's theology scriptural? 2) Is Witness Lee's theology "orthodox" i.e. in accordance with historical Christian faith. At the beginning of this thread I stated that Witness Lee's view of incarnation is not "orthodox" - he taught that Christ was the incarnation of the entire Trinity, when "orthodox" or "historical" approach is that Christ was the incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity - the Son. Now we have to face a question: which position is scriptural? And is it important? If not, why? If yes, why?

Ohio, if this thread doesn't take off well, I will share some of my thoughts. But I will wait a bit longer, maybe someone will pick this topic up. SpeakersCorner, how about you?

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-16-2008, 12:22 PM

I am interested in this thread but I think you can move along the time line a little further and ask if the Father and the Holy Spirit where incarnated does this mean they died on the cross? And if not what happened to them?

KSA · 07-16-2008, 12:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

I am interested in this thread but I think you can move along the time line a little further and ask if the Father and the Holy Spirit where incarnated does this mean they died on the cross? And if not what happened to them?

Very good points, djohnson. We'll come to that too.

countmeworthy · 07-16-2008, 09:25 PM

Ok..... I'm rolling up my sleeves and jumping into this thread.

First off...I don't know much about Lee's theology on the Triune God. I don't study modalism or other concepts of the Trinity. So I'm going to share with y'all what I've learned..what I've observed..& where I am in my relationship with God the Father, God the Son (JESUS) & God the Holy Spirit.

1) Raised as a Catholic. Taught there were 3 persons in One God..the Father, the Son & the Holy Ghost. End of Catholic knowledge/teaching.

2) Got saved in the LC. I think we were taught to believe in 3 persons in one God. So I was cool with that.

I remember the 'mingling' teaching: Ice, liquid, water vapor. Father, Son & Spirit. God mingled in our spirit. So what??? I don't know that information enriched my relationship with El Shaddai-Adonai ( God Most High, O LORD!)

But....in the LC, RARELY did we address the Father & the Holy Spirit, even though we believed and acknowledged them. If I'm not mistaken the Father was mainly acknowledged at the Lord's table to my recollection. The Holy Spirit was 'The LIFE GIVING SPIRIT living in our spirit.'

We learned the Spirit was the Comforter as well as the Life Giving Spirit.

My recollection was we spent most of our time calling on the Lord...Jesus.

At prayer meetings it was LORD..this & LORD that...or LORD JESUS.

We didn't pray 'IN the NAME of Jesus.'

So to me, I was given DOCTRINE on the Triune God.

A few years ago, I entered 'Christianity'...particularly, the Word-Faith Charasmatic bunch.

I didn't know what to make of how they prayed: Father..in the Name of Jesus....Holy Spirit You are welcome here... and when I heard people addressing the Lord Jesus in prayer, I was like Awwwwwwwwe

relieved.

So.. as I fellowshipped, prayed and searched the Scriptures, I began to step out of the box. I began to address the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit.

For me, speaking to the Father & the Holy Spirit was 'new'. In my Praise/Worship moments, I tell the Father I love Him and I tell the Holy Spirit I love Him and of course, it goes without saying I tell the Lord Jesus I love Him.

When I need insight & guidance, Counsel & Comfort, I talk to the Holy Spirit. He is the Voice of God. He counsels us, guides us, comforts us & speaks to us through our spirit.

But I also talk to our Lord Jesus & ask for His Wisdom & to strengthen my inner man..my spirit. He is my Rock..my Fortress, my High Tower, my Deliverer, my Redeemer, My Saviour, My Lord, My King.

The Person of the Godhead I know least of all is our heavenly Father.

I'm trying to get to know HIM. He is El SHADDAI...Almighty GOD. He is ADONAI..the LORD.

I'm well aware GOD is GOD. He is the Father, the Son & the HOLY Spirit.

There is ONE GOD...who is in us, through us and for us all.

In Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead. (Colossians 2:5-10)

Jesus is NOT the Father. He is the Son, the Redeemer and LORD of All. No man can come to the Father but through Jesus, the Son.

When Jesus was about to begin His Ministry, John the Baptist baptized Him in water and when He came out of the water, we read in Luke 4:1 Jesus being FULL of the HOLY GHOST returned to Jordan and was led by the SPIRIT into the wilderness.

So even Jesus received the Holy Spirit.

Later on in Luke 11:13 we read the Heavenly Father gives the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him. So I sometimes ask my Heavenly Dad to Fill me with His Holy Spirit when I need empowerment..and His Anointing.

The Holy Spirit empowers us to speak with boldness..with authority. He is also the Anointing..The Holy Spirit is the Oil of Joy, the Oil of Gladness. He points us to JESUS.

I remember when the Lord was begining to draw me to HIMSELF..to eternal SALVATION & Deliverence before I got saved.

I was entrenched in the world but beginning to see it was nothing but a dead end to life. One night, as I layed in bed contemplating my miserable life, I heard a 'voice' telling me to call on JESUS. 'Call on JESUS' I kept hearing over & over again. But my MIND told me go straight to GOD bypassing Jesus.

That VOICE I heard was the Holy Spirit speaking to me.....leading me to Jesus.

I didn't get saved that night...but I could have.

I got saved after praying to our LORD JESUS and surrendering my life to Him.

Very soon after, I learned through the scriptures NO MAN CAN COME TO THE FATHER but through JESUS! (John 14:6)

When we pray, addressing our Lord Jesus, we are praying through the Holy Spirit in us & reaching our Heavenly Father.

Sooooo I don't know what WLee taught really. But in my journey to draw near & dear to our LORD..to our GOD I have come to develop a relationship with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.

And that my friends is MY story and I'm sticking to it!

SpeakersCorner · 07-17-2008, 08:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

SpeakersCorner, how about you?

KSA,

Nothing makes this ol' fish bite faster than a lure like that.

I would like to take the angle of who died on the cross. Charles Wesley wrote in 1738, "Tis mystery all: the Immortal dies. Who can explore His strange design?"

When I first really noticed this line it shocked me. The immortal dies? It is an absolute contradiction of itself. Immortality cannot be mortality. And yet it happened. For me, this paradox has been one of the reasons I continue to preach Christ to others. It is the deepest truth in the universe, at least in my estimation. It is my hope, for if the immortal can take on mortality, then perhaps the mortal can take on immortality.

So for me the whole thing must be true: God died that day on the cross. I realize it is much more complex than that, but it also is that simple. If you explain away that God didn't really die, just the Son did, then you have diminished the cross experience by two thirds at least.

Anyway, that's my starting salvo. Yes, the entire Godhead dwelled in the Son. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

SC

finallyprettyokay · 07-17-2008, 08:34 AM

Here is a little story that happened to me just the other day. I think it is a sweet little example of how much God loves us. Umm, I think that would be God the Father. Or maybe the Son.

What happened was we were at a campground, with our cute cute little dog (a Shih Tzu, so cute), and this man came over to meet our little dog and talk to me. The man was in his 80's, I think.

After a couple of minutes, he started to tell me about his little dog that had died just a few months ago. He was really sad.

I listened, and indicated how sad it was. And I almost asked him what his dog's name was, but I had a shouting voice inside me say DO NOT ASK HIM. The voice was loud, clear, and definite. Don't do it.

I stopped, a little confused --- why not ? Why would asking him his little dog's name be a bad thing? And then the voice said because, if you do, this man will fall apart. It just would have been too close, too much for him. We talked a few more minutes, and then he went on his way.

So, I have thought about this a lot of times since then. I have thought that God (the Father) knows this man, and loves him. And He knows that if this man started to cry in front of me it would have been a horrible experience for him. And God wanted to spare him that pain.

And God also knows me pretty darn well. So the Holy Spirit hollered at me. No still, small voice this time. Got my attention.

So, I have thought about it a lot of times. Thought about how much God loves that man. I was witness to just a small little incident that any parent would do to protect their child.

What does this have to do with this thread on the Trinity? Well, just that I feel like I saw that fullness of God in this thing that happened. I really have never tried very hard to understand the nuances of the doctrine we are discussing here -- it always seemed easy to me. God/One/Three --

But boy, oh boy, does He love us. I feel so privileged that I got to see God in action here, just taking care of a man I will probably never see again. But God will!!!

Thanks, you guys. I like to be here, share with all of you, have you listen to me. It's nice.

PS -- SpeakerCorner --- I love Charles Wesley. He writes the most mysterious songs of all. Deep stuff. But it always sort of kills me that I actually have a favorite hymm writer. I just don't seem to me like the kind of girl that would. But there you have it.

countmeworthy · 07-17-2008, 09:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by finallyprettyokay

....What does this have to do with this thread on the Trinity? Well, just that I feel like I saw that fullness of God in this thing that happened. I really have never tried very hard to understand the nuances of the doctrine we are discussing here -- it always seemed easy to me. God/One/Three --

For all the doctrines on the Trinity, the Truine God, we KNOW HE is real! We may not understand the intricities but without anyone explaining the Triune God to us, we experience HIM.

KSA · 07-17-2008, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

KSA,

Nothing makes this ol' fish bite faster than a lure like that.

I would like to take the angle of who died on the cross. Charles Wesley wrote in 1738, "Tis mystery all: the Immortal dies. Who can explore His strange design?"

When I first really noticed this line it shocked me. The immortal dies? It is an absolute contradiction of itself. Immortality cannot be mortality. And yet it happened. For me, this paradox has been one of the reasons I continue to preach Christ to others. It is the deepest truth in the universe, at least in my estimation. It is my hope, for if the immortal can take on mortality, then perhaps the mortal can take on immortality.

So for me the whole thing must be true: God died that day on the cross. I realize it is much more complex than that, but it also is that simple. If you explain away that God didn't really die, just the Son did, then you have diminished the cross experience by two thirds at least.

Anyway, that's my starting salvo. Yes, the entire Godhead dwelled in the Son. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

SC

I will move a bit farther from here. I like the hymn SC quoted. However, we may ask what God died on the cross - the Son or the entire Triune God. I have mentioned the difference between Witness Lee's teaching on the incarnation and the common one. However, if we follow the common teaching how can the Son be incarnated separate from the Father and the Spirit - especially in the view of perichoresis of persons in the orthodox theology. If the Son dwells in the Father, and the Father dwells in the Son, if they are distinct, but not separate, how can only Son be incarnate? The same refers to crucifixion. William Young, the author of the famous book "The Shack" (www.theshackbook.com), caused a lot of controversy by telling in His book (in allegorical way) that thru the Son the Father partook of humanity and that the Father also had nail marks on his hands. Because of this some think that this book is heretical. But how can the Son do something separately from the Father and the Spirit? If you think about it, then "orthodox" teaching starts to look a little suspicious.

Well, I think it is enough for now. Your thoughts?

PS. And read the Shack, it is a great book.

KSA · 07-17-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

For all the doctrines on the Trinity, the Truine God, we KNOW HE is real! We may not understand the intricities but without anyone explaining the Triune God to us, we experience HIM.

This is a very Leeish view

And I really hope we get more smilies in the future. Our humor needs more ways for expression.

OBW · 07-17-2008, 09:26 AM

SC,

I fully understand what you are saying. God is a mystery. On one hand, He is quite fully One, and on another He is Three.

In the thread on the response of the GLA brothers to the Biblical scholars, I made the first comment. I am preparing a second comment on a different issue than the first. But in short, I question whether mixing the discussion of God’s unity/oneness with the discussion of the three personas He used to speak of His attributes is to muddy our understanding of God. God had a reason for introducing Himself as Father, Son and Spirit. Each has specific meaning. How fully independent these are, as in the presumption of separate human individuals is not clearly stated. Yet we clearly see evidence of their separateness in certain passages. On the other hand, our God is One.

We devise various methods based on our observable universe to explain this mystery. The BARM likes the term “essence” to explain it. But it is almost clearly not the whole story. Lee liked the “one” aspects of God. He majored on them. Many others seem to major on the “three.” Neither is the whole story.

So when we say that the Immortal dies, what do we mean? First, I will make one comment that someone else said to me a couple of years ago. I quoted lines from a song and someone essentially said “since when are song lyrics part of the canon of scripture.” Did Wesley use this particular set of words to indicate that he believed that God, in His entirety, died as we understand it?

We understand death in two ways: 1) separation from God, and 2) the ceasing of our biological functions. Clearly the biological functions of Jesus ended. But even before that happened, He cried out concerning being forsaken. By the time of the physical death, Jesus was fully dead. His biological being had ceased to function and His whole being was “forsaken,” or separated from God. Yet Paul writes that God raised Jesus from the dead. So God in His entirety did not die.

Between the death and resurrection, did God in heaven have the full understanding, feeling, sense of the situation of Jesus such that the reality of that separation was universally felt? Or alternately, was the forsaking of Jesus by God in heaven an act that caused separation of God which essentially affected both sides of the separation? This is where an inquiry in a truly logical and philosophical manner fails. Logic cannot bridge the chasm and philosophy must either accept the mystery as an assumed fact or it throws up its hands and says it must not be true.

Don’t try to answer these. I have no idea if they are even valid questions. But thinking through the questions that the death of part of a “Trinity” raises gives a tremendous appreciation for what God is and did/does without ever getting an answer to those questions.

God had a reason for revealing Himself in three personas. It is more than parlor tricks. But He is still One God. He spoke of the incarnation and life of Christ in terms of the Son, although there are backgrounds of the oneness throughout the gospels. But the incarnation was of the Son of God. That has meaning. It is part of the whole of God, not the whole. I do not find scripture that negates the idea that all of God was in Christ, but the actual scriptures on the subject speak of the Son of God. I will stick to the Son as what was incarnated.

KSA · 07-17-2008, 09:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I question whether mixing the discussion of God’s unity/oneness with the discussion of the three personas He used to speak of His attributes is to muddy our understanding of God. God had a reason for introducing Himself as Father, Son and Spirit. Each has specific meaning. How fully independent these are, as in the presumption of separate human individuals is not clearly stated. Yet we clearly see evidence of their separateness in certain passages. On the other hand, our God is One.

Orthodox theology says that Gos is one in nature (essence, substance), but not in number.

This really blows my brain away and "muddies my understanding".

One thing I am trying to show is that theology proper is something mysterious and complex. We have some things we are clear about, like God is one, but He is the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit; the deity and humanity of Christ, etc. But if we go deeper, we get lost - are Father, the Son and the Spirit persons or manifestations, for example? And what is person and how is it different from nature? This is just beyond our understanding. Therefore, we can hardly insist on our view and deny the salvation of those who disagree with us (like they did at Bereans). Hence, my main purpose is not to give ready answers (I just cannot), but to shatter some "traditional" notions and bow before the Greatness of our God!

PS. And I am somehow afraid to say that our God is not one in number. It kinda sounds like polytheism to me.

Ohio · 07-17-2008, 09:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Ohio, if this thread doesn't take off well, I will share some of my thoughts. But I will wait a bit longer, maybe someone will pick this topic up. SpeakersCorner, how about you?

I like SC's post about "The Immortal" dieing on the cross. What mystery!

If we can explain it all, then it becomes worthless doctrine, with little ability to inspire us or others. Nearly none of the Berean theological threads did me any good. I would usually just "shake my head" and "walk away."

Here's a line of thought that I do love. It came from a Brethren? tract "Jesus is Jehovah" refuting the "Jesus is not God" nonsense. The author compared numerous OT and NT scripture covering a couple dozen topics, the first one being creation. E.g. Isa 45 says, "Jehovah made the earth and man." John 1 says , "All things were made by Him." How can you NOT say that Jesus is Jehovah? Reading thru the booklet, the author makes an overwhelming case that Jesus is Jehovah.

What a great mystery this is. I can't begin to understand it. No, the Bible does not say, "Jesus is the Father," but so many scripture indicate that the Father and the Son are not "two separate and distinct persons, who both just happen to be God."

Phil Comfort, who was perhaps the most studious and most passionate minister I ever sat under in the LC, and who went on to become a well-respected Greek scholar, told me something helpful, that I never forgot, and perhaps helps to summarize my view of God. Referring to John 14.8, he said, "Many Christians in that day will still be asking the Lord Jesus, 'will you now show us the Father?'"

Ohio · 07-17-2008, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

Anyway, that's my starting salvo. Yes, the entire Godhead dwelled in the Son. That's my story and I'm sticking with it.

That's what I'm talkin' about! [Where's a good smiley, when you need one!]

And here's a verse that smashes all the BARM theology for me: "For in Him dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily." Col 2.9

KSA · 07-17-2008, 09:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

For all the doctrines on the Trinity, the Truine God, we KNOW HE is real! We may not understand the intricities but without anyone explaining the Triune God to us, we experience HIM.

We may also say that God is Triune so that we can get drunk with the Spirit. A drunk person has no problem to understand how one can be three - he experiences it every day.

So let us get drunk with the Spirit. I am actually typing all these posts in this thread just to get drunk.

aron · 07-17-2008, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Phil Comfort, who was perhaps the most studious and most passionate minister I ever sat under in the LC, and who went on to become a well-respected Greek scholar, told me something helpful, that I never forgot, and perhaps helps to summarize my view of God. Referring to John 14.8, he said, "Many Christians in that day will still be asking the Lord Jesus, 'will you now show us the Father?'"

John 14 has what I call a 'train-wreck' verse. Whatever little conceptual choo-choo train you got chuggin' down the track hits that verse and gets wrecked.

What do you think it was like for the disciples? Time and again, their little ideational sand castles got washed out to sea. It must have been disorienting, confusing, sometimes scary, but (c'mon, admit it) somewhat exhilarating too. "Wow. Who is this guy?"

OBW · 07-17-2008, 10:29 AM

KSA, Ohio, SC, etc.,

Absolutely!!

(What did he just say??) I said that every statement is absolutely part of our understanding. To our mortal minds, they may contradict at some level. But they are all important.

What I did not clearly say is that since God went to the trouble of speaking in terms of the three personas/persons/essences/(whatevers), when someone comes along and essentially blurs it all together and says "the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit" the importance of what God is or was saying in terms of the "separateness" is obliterated.

Is that heresy? Probably not. It surely is not modalism. But I believe it is a flaw in teaching that actually limits rather than enhances our understanding of God.

countmeworthy · 07-17-2008, 10:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

We may also say that God is Triune so that we can get drunk with the Spirit. A drunk person has no problem to understand how one can be three - he experiences it every day.

So let us get drunk with the Spirit. I am actually typing all these posts in this thread just to get drunk.

Oh KSA...I KNOW what you mean about being drunk in the Spirit!!! I had to pull over one day while I was Praising/Worshipping the Lord in my car while driving!!

I was on my way to an appointment & couldn't get out of my car!

Drink on Brother KSA!! Drink ON!!!!!!!!!!!! GLORY- GLORY- GLORY to the NAME of JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS !! JEEEEEEEEEESUS!! JEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS, We LOVE YOU LORD JESUS!!!!!

SpeakersCorner · 07-17-2008, 10:36 AM

One thing about this whole discussion which I would like to address is the fallback position of, "It's a mystery." Often this is followed by, "... so let it go," if not in actual words then in attitude.

Knowing that the trinity is a mystery in no way excuses not exploring it. We should study it and speak it and live it until we think, "I've got it! I finally understand the triune God." And then God will come along and pull back another layer of the onion and say, "Well, what about this?" And there we are, back in the mystery of it all.

If you study physics, this is exactly what happens. The more Hawking et al probe into the mystery of just plain old matter, the more whole new worlds of the unknown open up. But thank God they probe. Each layer of understanding they achieve renders great benefit to mankind.

And so it should be with the triune God mystery. We dig, probe, unravel, see a bit, proclaim way too much, but the body politic of Christians is benefited. As you, KSA, said to Countmeworthy, her view really is the fruit of Lee's teaching: we enjoy God. Not a bad side effect, I'd say.

SC

countmeworthy · 07-17-2008, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

This is a very Leeish view

And I really hope we get more smilies in the future. Our humor needs more ways for expression.

Yeah...and just think...I've been out of the LC for 30 plus years now!! Man...my heart goes out to those who have just gotten out recently !!

KSA · 07-17-2008, 10:38 AM

Amen, SC! I hope we will peel off many layers of onion here

countmeworthy · 07-17-2008, 10:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SpeakersCorner

One thing about this whole discussion which I would like to address is the fallback position of, "It's a mystery." Often this is followed by, "... so let it go," if not in actual words then in attitude.

Knowing that the trinity is a mystery in no way excuses not exploring it. We should study it and speak it and live it until we think, "I've got it! I finally understand the triune God." And then God will come along and pull back another layer of the onion and say, "Well, what about this?" And there we are, back in the mystery of it all.

If you study physics, this is exactly what happens. The more Hawking et al probe into the mystery of just plain old matter, the more whole new worlds of the unknown open up. But thank God they probe. Each layer of understanding they achieve renders great benefit to mankind.

And so it should be with the triune God mystery. We dig, probe, unravel, see a bit, proclaim way too much, but the body politic of Christians is benefited. As you said to Countmeworthy, her view really is the fruit of Lee's teaching: we enjoy God.

SC

SC........ EXCELLENT thoughts!!! I love EXPLORING everything about GOD & HIS WORD.

You mention Physics...There are Christians now exploring Quantum Physics too! Electricity etc...

But that's another topic to be discussed in another thread.

God is not enclosed in a BOX!!

Ohio · 07-17-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by countmeworthy

Oh KSA...I KNOW what you mean about being drunk in the Spirit!!! I had to pull over one day while I was Praising/Worshipping the Lord in my car while driving!!

I was on my way to an appointment & couldn't get out of my car!

Drink on Brother KSA!! Drink ON!!!!!!!!!!!! GLORY- GLORY- GLORY to the NAME of JEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS !! JEEEEEEEEEESUS!! JEEEEEEEEEEEEEESUS, We LOVE YOU LORD JESUS!!!!!

I bet cmw has smiley faces all over her car too! What a sight to see!

Old Rasputin · 07-18-2008, 11:46 AM

Quote:

I am interested in this thread but I think you can move along the time line a little further and ask if the Father and the Holy Spirit where incarnated does this mean they died on the cross? And if not what happened to them?

Acts 20:28 says:
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

SpeakersCorner · 07-18-2008, 12:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Amen, SC! I hope we will peel off many layers of onion here

Hey, KSA, ever hear that old Hindu thing about the elephant that holds up the earth standing on a turtle? And when you ask, what's the turtle standing on, the answer is, "It's turtles all the way down."

Well, same here. Peel back the onion layers until you get to ... more onion layers.

SC

countmeworthy · 07-18-2008, 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Old Rasputin

Acts 20:28 says:
Keep watch over yourselves and all the flock of which the Holy Spirit has made you overseers. Be shepherds of the church of God, which he bought with his own blood.

THUMBS UP Old Rasputin!

I had never seen Acts 2:20 in the LIGHT!

Thanks for bringing it to the forefront.

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-18-2008, 05:35 PM

So the Father didn't send his Son to die on the cross? He sent Himself? So all that talk by Jesus about being sent by the Father and doing the Father's will is really moot? It's just meaningless talk? Instead it should be: "I am God and I came down here for 33 years and I will die on the cross and resurrect myself and go back to heaven and send myself again at Pentecost." When I read the NT I see distinctions being made in the language of the writers and I have to think they were made for a meaningful reason.

KSA · 07-18-2008, 11:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

So the Father didn't send his Son to die on the cross? He sent Himself? So all that talk by Jesus about being sent by the Father and doing the Father's will is really moot? It's just meaningless talk? Instead it should be: "I am God and I came down here for 33 years and I will die on the cross and resurrect myself and go back to heaven and send myself again at Pentecost." When I read the NT I see distinctions being made in the language of the writers and I have to think they were made for a meaningful reason.

I remember how Witness Lee discussed the preposition "with" which in Greek is "para" and actually means "from with" (I remember checking Greek dictionary to confirm this). Therefore, when Christ came from the Father, He came "from with" the Father. When the Father sent the Son, He Himself came with the Son. And as I mentioned earlier, from perichoresis of hypostases accepted in orthodox theology it follows that the Son could do nothing without the Father as they always dwell in one another and cannot be separated.

Ohio · 07-19-2008, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

I remember how Witness Lee discussed the preposition "with" which in Greek is "para" and actually means "from with" (I remember checking Greek dictionary to confirm this). Therefore, when Christ came from the Father, He came "from with" the Father. When the Father sent the Son, He Himself came with the Son.

Then it makes a lot of sense for the Lord to tell them, if you have seen Me, you have seen the Father.

Said another way, if you want to see the Father, you need no more than to look at the man Jesus!

countmeworthy · 07-19-2008, 07:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

So the Father didn't send his Son to die on the cross? He sent Himself?

DJOHNSON!!!

Of Course GOD the FATHER sent GOD His Son JESUS to die on the cross!!

JESUS is GOD! God is also the ETERNAL Spirit, the HOLY SPIRIT, the Spirit of GOD.

That is the Wondersome Awesomeness of the Trinity-the Triune God, the 3 persons in ONE God.

I LOVE HIM. I love God the Father, my Heavenly Father. I love God, the Son of God, the ANOINTED ONE, my Redeemer, my Deliverer, My Fortress, My Hightower. I LOVE the HOLY SPIRIT who anoints me, guides me, counsels me, gives me Wisdom, Insight, speaks to me as the VOICE of GOD, and points me to JESUS by whom I have a relationship with my Heavenly Father for NO MAN can come to the FATHER but through JESUS.

The HOLY SPIRIT is GOD. JESUS is GOD, and the ALMIGHTY CREATOR of the UNIVERSE, our Heavenly FATHER IS GOD.

AND I my friend am FILLED with the FULLNESS of GOD and the JOY of the LORD which is my strength.

May YOU be filled with the Oil of Joy, the Oil of the Anointing of the Holy Spirit just as I AM in Christ Jesus.

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-19-2008, 10:31 AM

KSA I am going to review the Greek you refer to but my wider point is that if the Father sent himself then the discussion of the Son being sent seems moot. Why the distinction? Jesus did not say: "I am the Father and I sent myself." Why not? And I think a further question would have to be in relation to the Father why did Jesus die on the cross? What is the significance of it?

KSA · 07-20-2008, 12:45 AM

I think that when Christ speaks of Himself being sent from the Father, the main stress here goes on His humanity. In His humanity He was God's servant who was sent to do God's will. "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me... behold, I have come - in the volume of the book it is written of Me - to do Your will, O God" (Heb. 10:5-7)

YP0534 · 07-20-2008, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

I think that when Christ speaks of Himself being sent from the Father, the main stress here goes on His humanity. In His humanity He was God's servant who was sent to do God's will. "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me... behold, I have come - in the volume of the book it is written of Me - to do Your will, O God" (Heb. 10:5-7)

When you see Him, you see the Father. Just as when you see the glory shining in the functioning saints, you see God Himself.

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-20-2008, 12:28 PM

So he was sent by the Father. And in relation to the Father what significance is his death on the cross?

KSA · 07-20-2008, 12:50 PM

Can you clarify your question?

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-20-2008, 01:08 PM

I really don't know how to make it more clear. But maybe I could ask it this way: what is the significance of the distinction between the Father and The Son in terms of the cross and the redemptive work of Christ?

KSA · 07-20-2008, 01:21 PM

I would say that the Father is the one who planned our salvation, designed it, and the Son is the one who carried it out, fulfilled it.

I have a question for you too:

Jesus said that He did only what He saw the Father was doing. When Jesus went to the cross, did He go on His own, or He saw the Father doing it?

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-20-2008, 01:30 PM

I would say that based on your theory as I understand it so far the Father not only planned and designed our salvation but also carried it out and fulfilled it thus making the distinction between the Father and the Son in this context moot.

KSA · 07-20-2008, 01:45 PM

Dear djohnson, I am not making theories so far. What I am doing is pointing out portions in God's Word that raise up questions that orthodox theology basically did not address. I do not know if the distinctions are moot or not. What I am concerned about is that these distinctions are taken to the extreme of separation between the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And it goes against orthodox teaching of pericherosis.

Here is one story. I remember that not long after my salvation I read a book that claimed that we should pray to the Father in the name of the Son. The author boldly said that if I pray to the Son my prayers will not be answered. I took it seriously and began to pray to the Father in the name of the Son. But then I read another book which claimed that if we want to have an increase in the church we have to pray to the Holy Spirit. I was totally confused at that time. Eventually I decided when pray just to say "the Lord", and then They will decide for themselves to whom this prayer should go. Of course, it was ridiculous. It was tritheism, and many Christians unconsciously subscribe to this form of tritheism. When I came to LC, I was freed from this distortion, and in this way LC was a positive influence. There is only one God. And if out of ignorance or out of our inability to grasp the mystery of God, we sometimes blur the distinctions, I do not think that God will be offended that you ascribed to the one what usually is ascribed to the other. LC has many problems, but the accusation of modalism is plain ridiculous.

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-20-2008, 02:08 PM

Language is symbolic and it creates word pictures in our minds. What word picture do you see in your mind when you hear or read the word pericherosis?

UntoHim · 07-20-2008, 09:30 PM

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5lhdXeZqtk

There is a Redeemer,
Jesus, God’s own son,
Precious lamb of God, Messiah,
Holy one,

Jesus my Redeemer,
Name above all names,
Precious lamb of God, Messiah,
Oh, for sinners slain.

Thank you oh my Father,
For giving us your Son,
And leaving your Spirit,
til the work on earth is done.

When I stand in glory,
I will see His face,
And there I'll serve my King forever,
In that holy place.

Thank you oh my Father,
For giving us your Son,
And leaving your Spirit,
til the work on earth is done.

There is a redeemer,
Jesus, God’s own Son,
Precious lamb of God, Messiah,
Holy one,

Thank you oh my Father,
For giving us your Son,
And leaving your Spirit,
til the work on earth is done.

And leaving your Spirit,
till the work on earth is done.

by Keith Green

I think the late brother Green had it down just right.

Peter Debelak · 07-20-2008, 11:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Language is symbolic and it creates word pictures in our minds. What word picture do you see in your mind when you hear or read the word pericherosis?

Djohnson:

I was hoping to see a response from you to KSA's main point, because he has a point that hits home with me. Let's set aside the nuances of the modalism debate for a moment and let me ask something based on KSA's point:

What practical consequence should the "distinctness" of the Trinity have for the believer today? Asked more specifically: should prayers be catered based upon that separateness? Are some prayers rightfully directed to the Father, some to the Son and some to the Spirit? If so, how so?

Peter

KSA · 07-21-2008, 12:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Language is symbolic and it creates word pictures in our minds. What word picture do you see in your mind when you hear or read the word pericherosis?

I see a picture of diffusion from Chemistry. However, this picture is deficient as diffusion is an intermingling of different substances, but the Father, the Son and the Spirit are of one substance.

Ohio · 07-21-2008, 03:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by djohnson

Language is symbolic and it creates word pictures in our minds. What word picture do you see in your mind when you hear or read the word pericherosis?

When I read that word, my mind was blank. Still is.

What verse is that? How is that translated?

KSA · 07-21-2008, 05:08 AM

Perichoresis is coinherence or mutual indwelling. You can find it in John 17 where Jesus says that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. So if the Father was always in Jesus, is it possible to separate the Father from what Jesus did. I mentioned earlier that the book "The Shack" was condemned by many as heretical, because the Father portrayed there with the scars on His hands.

Many say that while Jesus ministered on the Earth, the Father was in the Heaven. This way they separate the Father and the Son. I believe that this way leads to a kind of tritheism.

Thankful Jane · 07-21-2008, 08:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Perichoresis is coinherence or mutual indwelling. You can find it in John 17 where Jesus says that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. So if the Father was always in Jesus, is it possible to separate the Father from what Jesus did. I mentioned earlier that the book "The Shack" was condemned by many as heretical, because the Father portrayed there with the scars on His hands.

Many say that while Jesus ministered on the Earth, the Father was in the Heaven. This way they separate the Father and the Son. I believe that this way leads to a kind of tritheism.

Perichoresis sounds like a disease to me.

Sigh.

I don't think anyone will ever figure out how to talk about all this with clarity ....

Christ is in you. Christ is in me. Right now. I would like to be able to say if you have seen me you have seen Christ, but I can't. Why not? Isn't Christ in me? (oops, but isn't He also in heaven right now? ...

)

The reason I can't say if you have seen me, you have seen Christ, is because I haven't learned how to walk with Him and always do what I see Him doing and say what I hear Him saying. I am not perfectly obedient as Jesus was. I'm still learning how to look to Him and listen to Him.

Did Jesus walk with His Father or was He His Father? Which was it? Just how did that work? If He was the Father, why did He need to listen to or watch the Father? I could go on and on, but I won't. I've got other threads to sew and miles to go as I practice looking to and listening to Jesus today... Just thought I'd pop in here with a few

thoughts (love that smiley) ... I think I better get out of here before I catch perichoresis. Carry on.

Thankful Jane

KSA · 07-21-2008, 08:44 AM

Seeing that red face and rolling eyes, I think you already caught perichoresis.

You should visit a doctor.

I know theological discussions can be boring and look not important. But when we label someone a heretic and a cultist, we gotta know our theology.

(I like this one).

My point is that Jesus was the Son sent by the Father. But the Father was in the Son, and the Son did only what He saw the Father was doing. Therefore, the Father was more than just an observer at the cross. Do you agree with this?

I'd like to again draw our attention to orthodox teaching that God is one in nature, but not in number. Does anybody agree with this statement?

countmeworthy · 07-21-2008, 08:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

Perichoresis sounds like a disease to me.
I don't think anyone will ever figure out how to talk about all this with clarity ....

The reason I can't say if you have seen me, you have seen Christ, is because I haven't learned how to walk with Him and always do what I see Him doing and say what I hear Him saying. I am not perfectly obedient as Jesus was. I'm still learning how to look to Him and listen to Him.

...I think I better get out of here before I catch perichoresis. Carry on.

Thankful Jane

That's what entered my mind too TJ ! Perichoresis.

As for not being perfectly obedient as Jesus was and the rest of your perceptions....you very well know our journey here on earth is a learning process.

You better not be beating yourself over the head with these thoughts Missy TJ!!!

I PRAY when people see me they WILL see JESUS and not -me-. Let it be your prayer too !! You know darn well we can't change by our our strength & in our strength!

Talk about beating a dead horse..I almost hate to sound clicheish ...but here goes anyway...BASQUE in the GLORIOUS PRESENCE OF GOD..giving Him PRAISE, HONOR & GLORY with GRATITUDE AND THANKSGIVING..letting HIM renew our minds, transforming our thoughts..so we THINK like HIM, SPEAK like HIM, WALK like HIM & before we know it, we have the FULLNESS of GOD in us..the FATHER, the SON & the HOLY SPIRIT!!

HIS GLORY then falls all over us..and people have no choice but to SEE JESUS in us!!

This is what is happening to me!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

GLORY to GOD !! Praise you LORD JESUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! THANK YOU HOLY SPIRIT!!!!!!!!!!!

UntoHim · 07-21-2008, 09:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Many say that while Jesus ministered on the Earth, the Father was in the Heaven. This way they separate the Father and the Son. I believe that this way leads to a kind of tritheism.

I strongly disagree, at least with the part that saying the Father was in Heaven can lead to a kind of tritheism.

Just WHOSE voice was THIS:
"and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased"
Matthew 3:17

And "who is in heaven" seems rather clear:
"Pray, then, in this way: 'Our Father who is in heaven, Hallowed be Your name' " Matthew 6:9

Both of these verses indicate that the Father was indeed “in heaven” or “in the heavens” while the Lord Jesus was ministering here on earth.

As a matter of fact, I would point out that while the Son of God was making the ultimate sacrifice for our redemption, the Father had to “forsake” the Son:
"At the ninth hour Jesus cried out with a loud voice, 'ELOI, ELOI, LAMA SABACHTHANI?' which is translated, 'MY GOD, MY GOD, WHY HAVE YOU FORSAKEN ME?' " Mark 15:34

Witness Lee oft contended that his teachings “balanced” what he considered to be the tritheistic teachings in orthodox and evangelical Christianity. Lee even endorsed the publication of an article which accused Dr. Walter Martin of “having three Gods” (article published in Orange County Register circa winter of 1977 entitled “The Bible Answer Man HAS THREE GODS”) In his ill-advised campaign to “balance” the orthodox view of the trinity, Lee swung the pendulum so far in one direction that many Christian teachers and apologists considered his teachings to be a flat out “form” of Modalism. And who could blame them with words and terms such as “stages”, “process” and “ultimate consummation” being bantered about.

Could it be that the three of the Trinity are neither three in a way that humans can fully understand, nor are they one in the way that a human can fully understand? Of course this question is rhetorical, but just because we cannot fully understand something should not stop wise, educated and spiritual men and women from assisting God’s people by setting standards of orthodoxy in teaching. Many of the standards of orthodoxy in teaching (especially the doctrine of the Trinity) were hammered out, debated over and given by way of creeds and accepted writings in the subsequent centuries following the birth of the church. Witness Lee purposefully and intentionally lead his followers away from these creeds and accepted writings, and there is no better example of this then his errant teaching of “The processed triune God”.

Frankly, as one who closely followed and fully imbibed Lee’s teachings on the Trinity for about 20 years, I find that the farther (in time and space) I have removed myself from his teachings, the more I see that they were, at the very least, errant and aberrational, and at worst heretical and harmful to those who imbibe them.

Shawn · 07-21-2008, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Seeing that red face and rolling eyes, I think you already caught perichoresis.

You should visit a doctor.

I know theological discussions can be boring and look not important. But when we label someone a heretic and a cultist, we gotta know our theology.

(I like this one).

My point is that Jesus was the Son sent by the Father. But the Father was in the Son, and the Son did only what He saw the Father was doing. Therefore, the Father was more than just an observer at the cross. Do you agree with this?

I'd like to again draw our attention to orthodox teaching that God is one in nature, but not in number. Does anybody agree with this statement?

I had been beating my head against a wall in trying to expound the mystery of the Trinity in previous forums (from my limited understanding), always coming up against the rejoiner "yes, but do you believe that the Son and the father are the same?" sorry, I had to get that out of my system!

Anyway, I fully embrace the One nature of God, but always am floored by the words our Lord spoke on the cross at His crucifixion; "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me?"

The pain of that experience is always too much to comprehend and causes me to wonder how deep of a chasm occurred in that moment of rejection of the Father for His Son, that our Salvation could be secured. I believe the One nature of God was never compromised, but still, how deep of a separation occurred at that moment....

Thank you Lord for bearing that pain, that we could recieve such a precious salvation and live with such a blessed hope!

Shawn

Thankful Jane · 07-21-2008, 09:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Seeing that red face and rolling eyes, I think you already caught perichoresis. You should visit a doctor.

I know theological discussions can be boring and look not important. But when we label someone a heretic and a cultist, we gotta know our theology.

(I like this one).

My point is that Jesus was the Son sent by the Father. But the Father was in the Son, and the Son did only what He saw the Father was doing. Therefore, the Father was more than just an observer at the cross. Do you agree with this?

I'd like to again draw our attention to orthodox teaching that God is one in nature, but not in number. Does anybody agree with this statement?

I'm sorry, I can't answer your question. I am too sick. I went to the doctor and he saw my red face and rolling eyes and confined to me to bed rest and told me absolutely and completely to quit thinking about the trinity. He told me to listen to CMW and and join the mighty chorus singing Worthy the Lamb!!!

Let's all join in a heavenly huggle with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

<--- Sorry for using this first, CMW, I see it is reserved for you. (Put your cursor over it.)

countmeworthy · 07-21-2008, 10:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

........ He told me to listen to CMW and and join the mighty chorus singing Worthy the Lamb!!!

Let's all join in a heavenly huggle with the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit,

<--- Sorry for using this first, CMW, I see it is reserved for you. (Put your cursor over it.)

Sooooooo..the doc told you to join the mighty chorus singing WORTHY the Lamb, did he? :-)) No wonder the Holy Spirit had me pull up Hillsong's 'Worthy is the Lamb' on YouTube earlier this morning!!

There ya go TJ...........

SING to your heart's content along with the Hillsong band and company. Close your eyes & let the LOVE of the LAMB of GOD permeate and saturate every fiber of your being as you rest in HIM.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AR4CCLnmf1Q

And don't forget to check out the Praise/Worship thread where I'll be posting some HEAVENLY Praise/Worship music that will surely Rapture you in spirit & soul and possibly body too!

KSA · 07-21-2008, 11:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

I strongly disagree, at least with the part that saying the Father was in Heaven can lead to a kind of tritheism.

Just WHOSE voice was THIS:
"and behold, a voice out of the heavens said, "This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well-pleased"
Matthew 3:17

Last Saturday I had a conversation with Jehovah Witnesses. What puzzled me is that they believe that God has some kind of spiritual body and is located at a special place, they call heaven. They seem to deny the omnipresence of God.

Of course, the Father was in Heaven, when Jesus was on the earth. But it does not mean that the Heaven was some kind of distant place and that the Father was located only there. The Father was in Heaven, but He was also in Jesus. So my question still stands: is it possible to separate the the Son from the Father? And did Jesus do anything the Father did not participate in?

KSA · 07-21-2008, 11:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shawn

I had been beating my head against a wall in trying to expound the mystery of the Trinity in previous forums (from my limited understanding), always coming up against the rejoiner "yes, but do you believe that the Son and the father are the same?" sorry, I had to get that out of my system!

Anyway, I fully embrace the One nature of God, but always am floored by the words our Lord spoke on the cross at His crucifixion; "My God, My God, Why have You forsaken Me?"

The pain of that experience is always too much to comprehend and causes me to wonder how deep of a chasm occurred in that moment of rejection of the Father for His Son, that our Salvation could be secured. I believe the One nature of God was never compromised, but still, how deep of a separation occurred at that moment....

Thank you Lord for bearing that pain, that we could recieve such a precious salvation and live with such a blessed hope!

Shawn

Do you think that on the Cross God the Son was separated from God the Father? Or Christ experienced this separation as a man?

OBW · 07-21-2008, 12:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

My point is that Jesus was the Son sent by the Father. But the Father was in the Son, and the Son did only what He saw the Father was doing. Therefore, the Father was more than just an observer at the cross. Do you agree with this?

The answer is a qualified "I don't think so."

When scripture says (actually Jesus says) that Jesus only did what he say the Father doing, is that clearly read as an absolute for all circumstances at all times? Is the nature of the statement a construct of language that identifies Jesus in the present, in the face of his opposers as having a clear view of the Father and His purpose for Jesus’ actions, words, etc., on the earth rather than someone acting of his own volition? Or is it a statement that Jesus is looking at the Father and the Father is acting in a manner that Jesus is mimicking and saying words that Jesus is repeating verbatim? Either way, the thing that is getting done on the earth is what the flesh-and-blood Jesus is doing.

But is Jesus saying he sees the Father do something and so he does it, but in reality he is simply the Father and he has no need to “see” anything? If that were the case, why does he not simply say “I am God and this is what I am doing.” But if he is “seeing” the Father doing something so he does it, then some separateness is implied.

Someone turned their back on the person who hung on the cross. If “the incarnate deity” died, yet he also forsook himself, and later was responsible for raising himself from the dead then there is credence given to the skeptics argument that God dying is a hollow gesture. He could not have truly died, but only experienced the kind of death of a biology to which He was not subject. At the level of the oneness of God, skeptics have some argument if God’s being is only one as we humans understand it. But God also speaks separately of the Father, the Son and the Spirit. There is simultaneously a separateness that we are unable to reconcile with His Oneness. It is in this separateness that He describes Himself as dying on a cross and also being the power that raised Himself from the dead.

What benefit do we gain by explaining away the very words God used to made the statements that He did?

I do not subscribe to the emerging/postmodern view that everything is a mystery that we cannot know so precisely. But when it comes to understanding the Trinity, I disagree that it is so un-mysterious that we can ignore the very verbiage God used to describe the incarnation and the crucifixion. I see the wonder and mystery in a God that says there are three — one of which became a man and died — yet is also One such that seeing the Son is not just like seeing the Father, or seeing someone like the Father, but seeing the Father.

I benefit from the fact of the incarnation, crucifixion and resurrection. Like you, I pray mostly to the “Lord” rather than some formula with headings and endings. Yet I also understand the purpose of the formula that Jesus taught when he told the disciples how to pray.

So I am inclined to say that the Father was more likely an observer to the crucifixion. That does not negate God’s oneness. But it respects the aspect of the three that was revealed in that account. Similarly, the recorded events when Jesus emerged from his baptism provide a look at the three. It makes a strong statement of three, although there is the implication of oneness because they are all present.

But the Father, referred to as “my God” forsook Jesus on the cross. Either there is meaning to this as recorded or we can join Witness Lee in obliterating the meaning that belongs to that side of the record of who God is as revealed in scripture. I chose to use the scriptures on the oneness of God to reveal his oneness while the scriptures that reveal his separateness reveal that separateness.

I find efforts to negate the differences in meaning contrary to the idea that scripture speaks. Lee was a master. He could latch onto something and it was “simply” something else. I believed that He nullified the Word of God in many cases. I fear that we risk repeating his errors when we seek ways to make the accounts actually found in the scripture meaningless. While I appreciate the mystery of the joining of Three and One, I do not believe that seeking to ignore the accounts of the Three because there are accounts that discuss the One is a proper analysis of scripture. Scripture speaks of the incarnation of the Son of God. In other places, the Father and Son are identified as One. But here they are not.

There is meaning.

KSA · 07-21-2008, 01:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

The answer is a qualified "I don't think so."

When scripture says (actually Jesus says) that Jesus only did what he say the Father doing, is that clearly read as an absolute for all circumstances at all times? Is the nature of the statement a construct of language that identifies Jesus in the present, in the face of his opposers as having a clear view of the Father and His purpose for Jesus’ actions, words, etc., on the earth rather than someone acting of his own volition? Or is it a statement that Jesus is looking at the Father and the Father is acting in a manner that Jesus is mimicking and saying words that Jesus is repeating verbatim? Either way, the thing that is getting done on the earth is what the flesh-and-blood Jesus is doing.

I would not use the word mimic, but I would say that Jesus was in constant fellowship with His Father and depended on His constant leading.

Quote:

But is Jesus saying he sees the Father do something and so he does it, but in reality he is simply the Father and he has no need to “see” anything? If that were the case, why does he not simply say “I am God and this is what I am doing.” But if he is “seeing” the Father doing something so he does it, then some separateness is implied.

I am not saying that Jesus is the Father.

But there is no separateness between Him and the Father, only distinction. If, as UntoHim said, we are to follow "creeds" and "historic faith", then we should avoid this heretical word "separate".

Quote:

What benefit do we gain by explaining away the very words God used to made the statements that He did?

I am not trying to explain away God's word. Please, tell me how you understand the words of Jesus: "Father, why have you forsaken Me?". Do you take them to mean that God the Father left God the Son. Jesus said that the Father is in Him, was it true on the cross? Or the Father was not in Jesus when Jesus died on the cross?

Quote:

So I am inclined to say that the Father was more likely an observer to the crucifixion. That does not negate God’s oneness. But it respects the aspect of the three that was revealed in that account. Similarly, the recorded events when Jesus emerged from his baptism provide a look at the three. It makes a strong statement of three, although there is the implication of oneness because they are all present.

Can you describe the nature of this oneness how you see it?

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-21-2008, 01:39 PM

OBW I agree with the general thrust of your last post. The language of Scripture makes clear distinctions. An attempt consciously or otherwise to erase these distinctions ultimately results in making them pointless. If the Father is the Son and the Son is the Holy Spirit then these distinctions: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just empty.

Shawn · 07-21-2008, 03:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Do you think that on the Cross God the Son was separated from God the Father? Or Christ experienced this separation as a man?

Hi KSA,

It is a very difficult question, for in answering it, the question must be asked if the Godhead that is the Son, was sub conscious or conscious to Our Lord as He lived on the Earth? To say that He bore the Godhead, but was not aware of it does not seem right. This would be the simple explanation that He could experience the separation from the father as a man, but unconsciously remain in the Godhead.

It would seem that He had command of His Godhead when He was tempted in the desert, otherwise the enemy would not have made such a request for Him to act as God, in changing the stones to bread.

I truly believe we cannot grasp the answer fully, for it is easy to understand the Son, our Lord, being one with the Father in following His will, but (I would say impossible) hard to comprehend how such a separation could occurr that would cause the Son to know the rejection of His Father; even though they were one.

I think to answer this is to try to unravel the mystery, so I will simply say

I don't know.

Thanks

Shawn

OBW · 07-21-2008, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

I would not use the word mimic, but I would say that Jesus was in constant fellowship with His Father and depended on His constant leading.

I am not saying that Jesus is the Father.

But there is no separateness between Him and the Father, only distinction. If, as UntoHim said, we are to follow "creeds" and "historic faith", then we should avoid this heretical word "separate".

I am not trying to explain away God's word. Please, tell me how you understand the words of Jesus: "Father, why have you forsaken Me?". Do you take them to mean that God the Father left God the Son. Jesus said that the Father is in Him, was it true on the cross? Or the Father was not in Jesus when Jesus died on the cross?

Can you describe the nature of this oneness how you see it?

Those are the words recorded. It indicates something like a “turning of the back” upon the scene. If we insist on Oneness as being overriding and the distinctions (separateness or whatever you want to call it) as something more like parlor tricks, then how does God turn his back on the One on the cross?

I know you do not believe that God’s distinctions are the divine equivalent of parlor tricks. But I sense a tendency toward the distinctions becoming theoretical and not substantive. Back on the BARM, I could see abugian and Justyn busy making the separateness into the whole thing with a theoretical oneness of essence that makes it less than tritheism.

There is a huge spectrum of truth that exists between the heresies of modalism and tritheism. I agree that there is something about one God turning his back on himself that is mysterious. But that is where the distinctions are at play. On the other hand, Jesus could rightly say that He and the Father were one — not just in agreement, or on the same page, but a singular. That is the oneness of God.

However, to expand one statement concerning the oneness of God onto an account recorded in scripture in which the Three (and the distinctions) are in play is to ignore what God was saying. It is as if we have become convinced that if “X” is said once and it means “Y” then every repetition of the word “X” must mean “Y.” We are comfortable with this throughout translation in which we use one word one way in some places and in another in others. We might try to argue that we could use the same word in all places, but that does not always work.

In this case, the “X” is God. But in one place, it simply says God. In another, there are aspects and actions of God that are attributed to one of the Three names and not the others. In other places, the Three are identified as more like alter-egos of the one God. Why is the scripture written this way? I must say that other than that is the way God did it, I don’t know. But since God did it, I will not be the one to fight it. If we are looking at a passage in which the distinctions of the Three is relevant, such as in the incarnation or the crucifixion, I find no compelling reason to fight that account and dismiss the distinction.

We can argue all we want about what it meant that the Father forsook the Son. But unless we are going to suggest that deity left the man Jesus immediately prior to his death on the cross, the Father did forsake the God-man who was hanging there. What do you think that means?

As for the use of the term “separateness” I find it interesting that we are so sure that we understand that aspect of Gad that a term that is simply used to denote the distinction/persona/person/separateness might be labeled as heresy. It would be heresy only if it is used to describe three separate gods who are not the One God of the Bible.

I think we understand the onenes quite well. God is One. He is as one as I am with myself. But when He says he is the Father, the Son, and the Spirit, He is not saying that he has multiple personality disorder and we can ignore them. Whatever the oneness is, it does not turn the distinctions into moot points that didn't deserve the effort taken to write them in the first place. Unfortunately, that is where I see this discussion going. It is further unfortunate that it is somewhat where Lee took us all those years ago. Unbalanced. We loked at everything in terms of teh oneness of God. We had not appreciation for the distinct asapects of God that we revealed as teh Father, Son and Spirit. Everything became a homogenized pea-green porridge of "just the Spirit."

That was part of the out-of-balance reality of the LC that we experienced.

djohnson(XLCmember) · 07-21-2008, 05:00 PM

OBW you bring up several good points and one in particular stands out to me: Lee's over emphasis on the oneness of God until the distinctions of the persons of the Trinity became blurred. And I think this obsession with oneness spilled out into his understanding of anthropology and ecclesiology as well i.e. ideally the distinctions of individuals and churches are lost in a nebulous whole. But the language of the Bible does not support this idea in theology, anthropology or ecclesiology.

KSA · 07-22-2008, 05:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Those are the words recorded. It indicates something like a “turning of the back” upon the scene. If we insist on Oneness as being overriding and the distinctions (separateness or whatever you want to call it) as something more like parlor tricks, then how does God turn his back on the One on the cross?

Maybe this portion from John Gill's commentary will be helpful:

When he is said to be "forsaken" of God; the meaning is not, that the hypostatical union was dissolved, which was not even by death itself; the fulness of the Godhead still dwelt bodily in him: nor was he separated from the love of God; he had the same interest in his Father's heart and favour, both as his Son, and as mediator, as ever: nor was the principle and habit of joy and comfort lost in his soul, as man, but he was now without a sense of the gracious presence of God, and was filled, as the surety of his people, with a sense of divine wrath, which their iniquities he now bore, deserved, and which was necessary for him to endure, in order to make full satisfaction for them; for one part of the punishment of sin is loss of the divine presence.

So I do not think that Matt. 27:46 talks about God the Father leaving God the Son. It talks about Jesus suffering as a man. As a man He depended on God's presence, He sought God's presence, and He lived in constant fellowship with His Father. On the cross, the sense of God's presence left Him. But it does not mean that the Father stopped dwelling in Him. Or that their coinherance was broken.

OBW · 07-22-2008, 11:58 AM

KSA,

I am not necessarily in disagreement with any finding that is clearly true, even if it is in opposition to what I have stated in my previous posts. I am trying to make a point concerning our certainty concerning what any particular verse does or does not mean relative to other verses due to the general silence of scripture as to what they actually mean.

As for the commentary of John Gill, he could be correct. But he is also simply applying his opinion concerning the issue. I may like it (and actually do). But that does not make it right. Also, the fact that others before him may have written the same or similar things is not determinative. If frequency of the opinion in history is a factor, then we have significant problems with the doctrines of the RCC.

I do not disagree that at some level God in his entirety is alway present in everything and in all of the Three of the Trinity. But in some sense there are Three and that distinction is valid. To wash it away where it is recorded is an error. It was one of Lee's more serious errors. I hope we are not ready to repeat it.

Old Rasputin · 07-22-2008, 03:31 PM

I agree Mike. When the Bible says something about God, we should listen carefully, no? Many verses show us clear distinctions between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I agree that Witness Lee often went overboard, trying to correct a perceived imbalance to the point of way overextending in the other direction.

My only beef is that we should pay equal attention to those troublesome verses that seem to rock the boat, regardless of our attitude toward Lee. One of the reasons his teachings gained traction with me was that he was willing to discuss verses like 2 Corinthians 3:17 directly, without airbrushing them or explaining them away.

KSA · 07-23-2008, 05:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not disagree that at some level God in his entirety is alway present in everything and in all of the Three of the Trinity. But in some sense there are Three and that distinction is valid. To wash it away where it is recorded is an error. It was one of Lee's more serious errors. I hope we are not ready to repeat it.

Ok - I think our discussion needs a step further. We do not disagree about distinctions. However, we need to come to some realization as to nature of these distinctions. Traditional theology teaches that God is one in nature (essence, substance), but three in person. That is we have one God in three persons. Greeks would say that God had one ousia, but three hypostses. Latins say that God has one substance, but three persona. Hence we have to define the term "person" (which is not even biblical) and determine the scope of distinctions. For example, how many wills are in God? Are the three in God equal or subordinate?

Please, state your views - and support them by the Scripture.

OBW · 07-23-2008, 09:32 AM

KSA,

I really do not have the time to spend to exhaust the possibilities on what the scripture might say on the two questions you pose. I understand your desire to get into the nitty-gritty of the words, even using some Greek in this last post. My observation is that getting close to the text, even to the individual words, has much value in understanding scripture. But it is also a place where meaning of the whole can be lost in the meanings of the details. Sort of a forest or trees problem. Both are relevant and must be considered.

As to the questions you posed, I am able to answer in a manner that is, within our world, contradictory.

I would begin by saying that there is one God. “Behold, the Lord your God is One God.” In this context, there can be only one will. Yet Jesus says “I do the will of the Father” (possibly not a perfect quote). This suggests a subservience of his will to the Father’s will. I do not have a problem with it being ultimate discovered (even if only upon the appearance of the New Jerusalem) that despite this statement by Jesus, there was truly only one will. But the statement made was that there was a subservience. Why? I don’t know. It may have been for the purpose of emphasizing to the disciples that they should also set their wills as subservient. But it does not say that anywhere.

Of course, whether we are talking about the Greek terminology, or that of the Latins from which we eventually developed the “three persons” terminology, none of it is scripture, but our attempt to reconcile the difficulties of the scriptures that speak of both three and one. I am quite content to accept that there is One God with One Will because scripture says it, and also accept that Jesus and the Father had separate wills that, while by definition are identical, are also spoken of as one subservient to the other. If I need it to be only one way or the other, then I am requiring God to be according to the limits of my mind. Another way to say that is to say that I am creating God in my image.

We have a doctrine of the Trinity because we cannot fully reconcile three being one God rather than an triumvirate. Unfortunately, I see this exercise as an attempt to reconcile the two sides into a coherent whole. Attempts at reconciliation of the three/one issue has tended to result in becoming lopsided toward one of two heresies — modalism or tritheism.

I am not saying that there is not a lot to be learned from this and other inquiries. It might even be a good window into what was true and in error concerning Lee’s teachings. But if we insist that God must fit into man’s logic, we risk joining others who are already dancing on the wall around a well of heresy. When we are content to define away the distinctions of “persona” that the Bible uses, we are defining away something that it is telling us. I don’t buy into the idea that it was just terminology used to help those less educated people of that day understand but we are smarter. The scripture did not waste words. Don’t explain them away. It is more meaningful to point to the fact that Jesus and the Father really are one, yet somehow Jesus could die on the cross while the Father turned his back, but then resurrected him. It demonstrates a multifarious and vast God much more than one who is playing games with us because the very distinctions that He uses to speak of Himself are really not important.

Last. I am not suggesting that this thread is useless. If that is what I thought, I would ignore it. But I see it as full of possibilities in discovering more of those un-reconcilable details about God that establish Him as more than man and outside our experience and knowledge. As one of the Psalms (maybe 139?) in effect says, there is knowledge that is beyond me and I cannot reach it because it is too high. Are we willing to accept that there are aspects of God that are beyond our knowledge, and therefore beyond our ability to reconcile and describe in human terms? I hope so. Otherwise, we are smarter than the God who wrote the scriptures for us to learn of Him.

You can consider this whole post rhetorical. If you feel compelled to respond, that is OK. You do not have to. I am not saying that there is not value in the discussions. But if in our search for truth we find ourselves arguing away the very words from which we draw our authority, from where does our authority come?

Thankful Jane · 07-23-2008, 10:09 AM

I have not closely followed this thread, but I have a few thoughts as a result of reading Mike's post that I would like to share. These somewhat tie the doctrinal understanding together with the experiential understanding.

One is that maybe we are wrong to characterize Christ's experience when he cried out "My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?" as being God turning His back on Christ or leaving Him. I think it is very possible that their fellowship, previously unbroken by anything, was broken in those hours that He bore the penalty of our sins as a man. Can't we understand this to be similar to the same way that we have Christ in us, but we can at times feel forsaken and even cry out like this. (I think that this is typically due to sin somewhere in our lives.)

Another thought is that the danger in modalistic bent teachings, in which the distinctions among the three are minimized or reduced or removed or blended, is that this carries over to our relationship with God. Modalistic beliefs inevitably end up also removing the distinction between us and God. We can fall into the distinction-blurring and distinction-removing error of believing that we are "becoming" Him. This opens up a pandora's box of misunderstanding that will hurt our relational walk with Him, our proper understanding of personal and distinct accountability, etc.

Another is concerning the will of Jesus being subservient to the will of God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are perfectly of one will. When God became flesh in Christ He also had a human will. Could it not have been his human will that submitted to the will of God. He said that He intercedes for us as a sympathetic high priest tempted in all points like as we are. He set the example for us in His life of the way to walk with His human will one with the Father's which was constant fellowship with His Father. This is the same way we are to walk.

That's it... carry on.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 07-23-2008, 09:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

Jane,

I like your avatar. That wouldn't happen to be the picture of one of the BARM moderators would it? I'm all ears.

Hi Mike,

I like your tag line, so I'll use part of it to answer

You think, therefore your are .... correct....

This was a Target special from years ago that had faded away and lost its color. It's one of the few survivors of the "burnings." I recently used my cool printer's software to restore it's color. He's a little survivor in more ways than one.

Thankful Jane

Thankful Jane · 07-23-2008, 10:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hope

It looks like a Barm Moderator to me.

Hope

Dear Hope,

You're a quick one, you are.

He's a baby boomer's baby barmer.

Well, after re-reading what I just wrote.., I became instantly clear about what I must do next, so I am

uttingtosleep: (put cursor over face.).

Thankful Jane

KSA · 07-24-2008, 04:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

I have not closely followed this thread, but I have a few thoughts as a result of reading Mike's post that I would like to share. These somewhat tie the doctrinal understanding together with the experiential understanding.

Dear Jane, it is a very good post! And you are right - our doctrinal understanding should always go together with our experience. This is why I think that this thread is not just intellectual game; our understanding of God affects our experience.

Quote:

One is that maybe we are wrong to characterize Christ's experience when he cried out "My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?" as being God turning His back on Christ or leaving Him. I think it is very possible that their fellowship, previously unbroken by anything, was broken in those hours that He bore the penalty of our sins as a man. Can't we understand this to be similar to the same way that we have Christ in us, but we can at times feel forsaken and even cry out like this. (I think that this is typically due to sin somewhere in our lives.)

Yes, God never turned His back on Christ. Moreover, the Word says that when Christ was mortified in the flesh, He was being enlivened in the Spirit. But Jesus as the Son of Man lost the sense of God's presence to taste the consequences of sin for our sake.

Quote:

Another thought is that the danger in modalistic bent teachings, in which the distinctions among the three are minimized or reduced or removed or blended, is that this carries over to our relationship with God. Modalistic beliefs inevitably end up also removing the distinction between us and God. We can fall into the distinction-blurring and distinction-removing error of believing that we are "becoming" Him. This opens up a pandora's box of misunderstanding that will hurt our relational walk with Him, our proper understanding of personal and distinct accountability, etc.

Actually methinks that many who criticize the so-called modalistic theology never bothered to study it. Therefore, they often fight against a straw man. Modalism does not deny the distinction between the Son and the Father. It just explains the distinction in a different way. And as the Scripture is not very clear about these distinctions (orthodox explanation does not come from the Word, but from Greek philosophy), I do not think we should be very dogmatic about it. It is disingenuous to doom modalists for hell, just because of different understanding. After all, the majority of those who claim to be orthodox in their understanding of theology have very vague idea about what Trinitarian theology really is. BTW, "becoming God" was not taught by modalism, it was taught by Trinitarian church fathers.

Quote:

Another is concerning the will of Jesus being subservient to the will of God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are perfectly of one will. When God became flesh in Christ He also had a human will. Could it not have been his human will that submitted to the will of God. He said that He intercedes for us as a sympathetic high priest tempted in all points like as we are. He set the example for us in His life of the way to walk with His human will one with the Father's which was constant fellowship with His Father. This is the same way we are to walk.

Exactly my view.

Ohio · 07-24-2008, 06:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thankful Jane

This was a Target special from years ago that had faded away and lost its color. It's one of the few survivors of the "burnings." I recently used my cool printer's software to restore it's color. He's a little survivor in more ways than one.

Thankful Jane

Glad to see a little modern technology is used by the Lord to restore the years devoured (or burnt) by the locusts.

Paul Miletus · 07-28-2008, 02:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Okay, let me state my reasons for starting this thread. One of the major accusation against LC is that of modalism. However, I found out that those who set this accusation do not really know theology well. My discussion at the Bereans proved it. When we touch this matter two things usually come up: 1) Is Witness Lee's theology scriptural? 2) Is Witness Lee's theology "orthodox" i.e. in accordance with historical Christian faith. At the beginning of this thread I stated that Witness Lee's view of incarnation is not "orthodox" - he taught that Christ was the incarnation of the entire Trinity, when "orthodox" or "historical" approach is that Christ was the incarnation of the 2nd Person of the Trinity - the Son. Now we have to face a question: which position is scriptural? And is it important? If not, why? If yes, why?

For clearer discussion, please allow me to post the following excerpts from "The Move of God in Man" how Brother Witness Lee taught regarding this subject:

Quote:

IV. ALL THE DIVINE TRINITY PARTICIPATING
IN THE INCARNATION

All the Divine Trinity—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—participated in the incarnation. Many Christians are accustomed to saying that the incarnation is merely the incarnation of Christ, but we must realize that this is the incarnation of Christ with the Divine Trinity.

A. Being the Incarnation of Christ as God

The incarnation is the incarnation of Christ as God. First Timothy 3:16 says that Christ was God manifested in the flesh. John 1:14 says that the Word became flesh. This is the incarnation of the Word. But verse 1 says that the Word was God, and God here is the complete God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. The incarnation is the incarnation of Christ, who is the embodiment of the Triune God (Col. 2:9). Therefore, the incarnation of Christ is the incarnation of the Triune God.

B. Being the Incarnation of the Son of God

God's incarnation was the incarnation of the Son of God (Rom. 8:3). In His essence God is one, but in His economical move, God is three. This is why we do not say that God the Father accomplished redemption. We say that God the Son accomplished redemption. Acts 20:28, however, says that God obtained the church with "His own blood." Thus, the blood of Christ is the blood of God. This implies that the Lord Jesus is God. This shows that we have to be very careful when we talk about the Divine Trinity in His person and in His work. The safest way is to just follow the Bible. Whatever the Bible says, we should say. The Bible reveals the economical aspect of the Divine Trinity and it also reveals the essential aspect. Our redemption was accomplished by God the Son economically, but God the Father and God the Spirit also took part in this accomplishment. Whatever the Son did was with the Father and by the Spirit because the three are essentially one.

C. God the Father Having Participated
in the Incarnation

God the Father participated in the incarnation. Isaiah 9:6 says that a Son was given to us. This was the incarnation. According to Isaiah 9:6, the Son given to us in incarnation is called the eternal Father. Is this One the Son or the Father? John 5:43a says that the Son came in the name of the Father. We need to consider what this means. If a person goes to the bank to cash a check signed by another person, he must go there in the name of that person. To go to the bank in the name of another person is to go there as that person. The Son coming in the name of the Father means that He came as the Father. This is equivalent to the Son being the Father; hence, He is called the Father in Isaiah 9:6.

In the Divine Trinity, the Son, the Father, and the Spirit are all one. The Son came, but the Son and the Father coinhere. To coinhere is to mutually indwell each other. The Son is in the Father and the Father is in the Son (John 14:10). The Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are really one. No one can divide Them. There is a distinction among Them but there is no separation. In the Lord's prayer in John 17, He revealed that He and the Father are one (vv. 21-22). From all of this we can see that the Father participated in the incarnation.

D. God the Spirit Having Joined the Incarnation

God the Spirit also joined the incarnation. In Luke 1:35 the angel told Mary that the Holy Spirit would come upon her as the power for her to conceive the holy child. Matthew 1:18 and 20 tell us further that Mary "was found to be with child of the Holy Spirit" and that "that which has been begotten in her is of the Holy Spirit." This indicates that the divine essence out of the Holy Spirit had been begotten in Mary's womb before she delivered the child Jesus. The incarnation was of the Son of God, but it was carried out by the Spirit. The Spirit also participated in the incarnation.

Now we can see that the entire Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—was incarnated. All three participated in the incarnation. When we say "God's move in man," we mean the Triune God's move in man, the move of the Three of the Divine Trinity. God's incarnation was the start of God's direct move in man. The Triune God—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit—all came out of eternity with divinity to enter into a human being to be one with man, to make Himself a man, and to participate in man's nature (Heb. 2:14a). This is so great and is far beyond our natural thought and understanding. God came in a silent way, in a secret way, and even in a small way. He came in His Divine Trinity to enter into a human being and be born there. By this He made Himself one with man and a part of man. From the time of His incarnation, He began not only to be in man but also to be a man.

KSA · 07-28-2008, 03:05 AM

Welcome, Paul. Glad to see you here.

As I stated in the beginning of this thread, Witness Lee's teaching differs from the commom teaching that only the Son was incarnated. At present I am not saying that Lee's teaching was not scriptural. It is what we are trying to establish here.

Can you share your own thoughts based upon the discussion that had already transpired here. The quote you posted is relevant (I only removed last two paragraphs as they were beyond the subject of this thread). But I hope your participation will go beyond posting quotes. God bless you!

KSA · 07-28-2008, 03:12 AM

Paul, maybe if you want to refer us to large chunks of quotes, you may just post a link to LSM online library, if it's possible.

Paul Miletus · 07-28-2008, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Welcome, Paul. Glad to see you here.

As I stated in the beginning of this thread, Witness Lee's teaching differs from the commom teaching that only the Son was incarnated. At present I am not saying that Lee's teaching was not scriptural. It is what we are trying to establish here.

Can you share your own thoughts based upon the discussion that had already transpired here. The quote you posted is relevant (I only removed last two paragraphs as they were beyond the subject of this thread). But I hope your participation will go beyond posting quotes. God bless you!

Many thanks, KSA.

My belief is that the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit are three distinct Persons in the Godhead co-existing from eternity past to eternity future, and all Three are equally God. This is clearly shown by Mat. 3:16. The Father is in the heaven, the Son is on the water, and the Holy Spirit coming down to the Son like a dove. The Divine Three are existing at the same time. Not as different modes of 1 Person, but as three distinct Persons. This is also what the Trinitarians believe.

I also believe, at the same time, that the three Persons in the Godhead are co-inhering, also from eternity to eternity. They are abiding in each other, dwelling in each other, existing within each other. This co-inhering accounts for the three Persons in the Godhead to be NOT SEPARATE, and also accounts for the three Persons in the Divine Trinity to be One. They are not separate because, although distinctly three, They are existing within each other. Within the Person of the Father, there is the Son and the Spirit; within the Person of the Son, there is the Father and the Spirit; and within the Person of the Holy Spirit, there is the Father and the Son.

With the above belief, if follows that the incarnation of Christ is with the Divine Trinity and not just merely the incarnation of Christ.

KSA · 07-28-2008, 04:19 AM

Thank you, Paul. So if the Father is always in the Son, then when Christ was on the cross, the Father was also in Him, right? If so, how do you think, did Father have any participation in the sufferings of Jesus?

Paul Miletus · 07-28-2008, 05:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Thank you, Paul. So if the Father is always in the Son, then when Christ was on the cross, the Father was also in Him, right? If so, how do you think, did Father have any participation in the sufferings of Jesus?

In the New Testament, during the crucifixion of the Lord Jesus we can only see the Lord Jesus by Himself carrying the cross going to Golgotha. In fact, in Matthew 27:46 it was mentioned there also, "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me" and a lot of us would immediately conclude that the Lord Jesus was by Himself alone at that time.

However, if we will consider the Old Testament, specifically in Genesis 22 we can see a vivid picture how the Lord Jesus was carrying His cross toward Golgotha for His crucifixion. In Genesis 22 we can see Abraham and Isaac journeying to Mount Moriah of which Isaac will be sacrified by his father Abraham. In typology, Abraham typifies God the Father; and Isaac typifies God the Son. Also, Abraham and Isaac's journeying to Mount Moriah was the same road or way for the Lord Jesus Christ's crucifixion at Mount Golgotha.

In Genesis 22, we can see how sorrowful Abraham for his son Isaac to be sacrificed. But, nevertheless, Abraham was so obedient and have faith in the God of resurrection, there was no question asked but just to obey. Genesis 22 simply illustrates to us that the God the Father has never left the Son (Jesus Christ).

Now, if you are referring to the "physical" suffering of the Father along with the Lord Jesus at that time, we both know that God is Spirit. The physical suffering as I understand will be limited to the God the Son Who became flesh. Also, we know that the Lord Jesus Christ is the Son of God. Again, in Genesis 22 we saw that Isaac typifies the Son of God, and later, we saw that instead of Isaac to be killed, it was a lamb. By this vivid illustration in Genesis 22, we can perceive that the Son of God at the time of crucifixion was also replaced. We can clearly see here in Genesis 22 that Isaac was not killed but the ram (lamb). Christ is the Son of God (John 1:14), but when He was killed on the cross, He was replaced by the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

Genesis 22 is very helpful for all of us to realize: that the Son of God was replaced by the Lamb of God. The Lamb of God, not the Son of God, was crucified. In crucifixion, the Son was replaced by a ram.

YP0534 · 07-28-2008, 05:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

We can clearly see here in Genesis 22 that Isaac was not killed but the ram (lamb). Christ is the Son of God (John 1:14), but when He was killed on the cross, He was replaced by the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

Genesis 22 is very helpful for all of us to realize: that the Son of God was replaced by the Lamb of God. The Lamb of God, not the Son of God, was crucified. In crucifixion, the Son was replaced by a ram.

Whoa.

OK

This is something new to my ears.

How could the Son of God be "replaced" by the Lamb of God when these two are just the same One? He was both the Son of God and the Son of man. This very One, who became flesh as the Word of God and even God Himself, was the spotless Lamb slain before the foundation of the world and He was sacrificed for us at the time of Passover in accordance with typology and prophecy.

If nothing else, I would say that this suggests that the human nature and the divine nature were not mingled if there could be a "replacement" such as this!

Please, explain this consideration further because I think perhaps a bit too much has been read into the Abraham story.

If anything, Christ's death was subtitutional for you and I.

Cal · 07-28-2008, 06:35 AM

Paul,

The the Son became flesh and suffered physically. If the Son is the Father, as Lee says, how can you say the Father did not suffer just as much physically as the Son did? If you make the bed of the Son being the Father you have to lie in it. You can't back off of any of the implications or else you make the belief a joke.

And did you just say that Christ did not die, but was replaced by a ram? The Lamb of God, not the Son of God died? The Son is the Lamb!

What do you mean that the Son was "replaced?" Do you even know what you mean? Or is it just some high-sounding bible talk?

You sound pretty confused here, Paul. And I might add, very herectical.

OBW · 07-28-2008, 06:48 AM

Paul,

If Christ was replace by the “lamb of God” then what was the replacement of Isaac by the ram? We have always been taught that it meant that we ultimately do not die, but there is a replacement and that replacement is the Son of God.

If the Son of God is then able to do the same trick and skip the sacrifice, then who died on our behalf? Did God renege on his promise to provide a better sacrifice? Did Paul speak incorrectly when he mentions that Christ was crucified? “Christ” was not just the human body of Jesus. Christ was all that the God-man Jesus contained. That was humanity and divinity.

If this is what was gleaned from Lee’s teachings, then even Lee for all his poor teachings is probably rolling over in his grave.

Thankful Jane · 07-28-2008, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Christ is the Son of God (John 1:14), but when He was killed on the cross, He was replaced by the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

Genesis 22 is very helpful for all of us to realize: that the Son of God was replaced by the Lamb of God. The Lamb of God, not the Son of God, was crucified. In crucifixion, the Son was replaced by a ram.

Yikes! Let me add my exclamation to the chorus of others.

You don't by any chance have a quote from Lee saying this do you?

Thankful Jane

Hope · 07-29-2008, 05:16 AM

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus
Christ is the Son of God (John 1:14), but when He was killed on the cross, He was replaced by the Lamb of God (John 1:29).

Genesis 22 is very helpful for all of us to realize: that the Son of God was replaced by the Lamb of God. The Lamb of God, not the Son of God, was crucified. In crucifixion, the Son was replaced by a ram.

Dear Paul M.

Have you ever drifted off the reservation. Give Ron Kangas a call and run this notion by him and then scurry home. You mind is doing mental flips and you are way off. Back off and try again.

In Christ Jesus,

Hope

Paul Miletus · 07-29-2008, 07:00 AM

Many thanks for all your comments... and pardon me if I have upset all of you...

Perhaps, you can help me out by giving a scripture from the Bible that the "Son of God" was crucified rather than "Jesus" or the "Son of Man" or the "Lamb of God".

I would like to say that I believe that the "Son of God", "Jesus", "Son of Man" and the "Lamb of God" all pertain to the second Person of the Triune God, the Lord Jesus Christ.

But with regards to the Lord Jesus Christ's crucifixion, was it not the "ram" or the "Lamb of God" that was crucified as allegorized in Genesis 22?

The "Son of God" signifies the Lord Jesus' DIVINITY.

The "Son of Man" signifies the Lord Jesus' HUMANITY.

How can a DIVINE BEING (Creator) be put to death by man (creature)? That was the very reason we have John 1:1,14 --

John 1
The Word Became Flesh
1In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
14The Word became flesh and made his dwelling among us. We have seen his glory, the glory of the One and Only, who came from the Father, full of grace and truth.

John 1:29 explicity declares that it was the "Lamb of God" who was slain (Rev 13:8).

John 1:29
The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Revelation 13:8
8All inhabitants of the earth will worship the beast—all whose names have not been written in the book of life belonging to the Lamb that was slain from the creation of the world.

KSA · 07-29-2008, 07:11 AM

Paul, what you write so much resembles Nestorianism. There was no substitution of the Son of God with the Lamb on the cross, it sounds also like adoptionism. You cannot base your teaching on the allegory. Can you prove your substitution teaching from the New Testament?

Paul Miletus · 07-29-2008, 11:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Paul, what you write so much resembles Nestorianism. There was no substitution of the Son of God with the Lamb on the cross, it sounds also like adoptionism. You cannot base your teaching on the allegory. Can you prove your substitution teaching from the New Testament?

The Apostle Paul even took the lead to allegorize the Old Testament for us to fully understand the Word of God in the New Testament.

Brother Witness Lee wrote in the Life Study of Genesis: "If we are going to appreciate the treasures in the book of Genesis, we must realize that Genesis is a book of allegories. Abraham's biography is an allegory. His wife and his concubine especially are a very meaningful allegory."

Quote:

Philippians 2
6Who, being in very nature God,
did not consider equality with God something to be grasped,
7but made himself nothing,
taking the very nature of a servant,
being made in human likeness.
8And being found in appearance as a man,
he humbled himself
and became obedient to death—
even death on a cross!

Philippians 2 clarifies that the Lord Jesus laid aside the form of God (not the nature of God) and emptied Himself, taking the form of a slave.

Brother Witness Lee further explained in the Life Study of Genesis --

Quote:

The Lamb of God who replaced the Son of God was our substitute (1 Pet. 3:18). As the ram was killed instead of Isaac, so the Lamb of God suffered crucifixion for us. When as a boy I heard the preaching of the gospel in which we were told that Christ suffered death on our behalf, I could not understand it fully. Only when I saw the clear picture in Genesis 22 was I able to understand how Christ was our substitute. The ram was killed for Isaac. This is a picture showing that Christ, the Lamb of God, was crucified on the cross for us. We all should have gone to the cross, but God replaced us with the Lamb of God. To this we all must say, "Praise the Lord! The Lamb of God, who is the Son of God, was our substitute."

Because the Lamb of God became our substitute, He became great and significant. In Revelation the unique title of Christ is the Lamb. When in Revelation 5 the Apostle John saw the scroll which no one in heaven or on earth was worthy to open, he wept. Then one of the elders said to him, "Do not weep; behold, the Lion of the tribe of Judah, the Root of David, has overcome to open the scroll and its seven seals." Immediately after this, John saw the Lamb: "I saw in the midst of the throne and of the four living creatures, and in the midst of the elders, a Lamb standing." In Genesis 22 we have the seed of that Lamb. This seed grew up in John 1:29 and is harvested in the book of Revelation. Eventually, the throne of God becomes the throne of God and of the Lamb out of which proceeds the river of water of life with the tree of life growing in it (Rev. 22:1-2). All this proves that the Bible is not a manmade book. It certainly is the divine revelation. What a picture of Christ is revealed in Genesis 22!

KSA · 07-30-2008, 02:52 AM

As I sain in another thread, it is ok to use types, provided there is an anti-type. In this case there is no anti-type in the New Testament of the Son of God being substituted with the Lamb of God.

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 03:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

As I sain in another thread, it is ok to use types, provided there is an anti-type. In this case there is no anti-type in the New Testament of the Son of God being substituted with the Lamb of God.

In John 1:29, the apostle John saw clearly the Lord Jesus. Can you please tell me whether what the apostle John saw was a Lamb or the Lord Himself.

Quote:

John 1
29The next day John saw Jesus coming toward him and said, "Look, the Lamb of God, who takes away the sin of the world!

Would you believe that the apostle John might have known Genesis 22? If not, where did John get the idea to call the Lord Jesus as the "Lamb of God"?

You were looking for the "anti-type in the New Testament" regarding the Son of God becoming the Lamb of God? Perhaps, we can try the following verses:

Quote:

1 Corinthians 5:7
Get rid of the old yeast that you may be a new batch without yeast—as you really are. For Christ, our Passover lamb, has been sacrificed.

Quote:

1 Peter 1:19
but with the precious blood of Christ, a lamb without blemish or defect.

Quote:

Revelation 5:6
Then I saw a Lamb, looking as if it had been slain, standing in the center of the throne, encircled by the four living creatures and the elders. He had seven horns and seven eyes, which are the seven spirits of God sent out into all the earth.

Quote:

Revelation 5:12
In a loud voice they sang: "Worthy is the Lamb, who was slain, to receive power and wealth and wisdom and strength and honor and glory and praise!"

Quote:

Revelation 21:9
One of the seven angels who had the seven bowls full of the seven last plagues came and said to me, "Come, I will show you the bride, the wife of the Lamb."

Quote:

Revelation 21:14
The wall of the city had twelve foundations, and on them were the names of the twelve apostles of the Lamb.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 03:17 AM

Christ was both the Son of God and the Lamb of God. That He was the Lamb of God made our redemption possible; that He was the Son of God made the redemption eternal.

Are you trying to tell us that in Christ there were two persons: the Son of God and the Lamb of God, and on the cross one person replaced another? And I wonder if it is your teaching, or it is now accepted teaching in LC? When I was there such heresy was unknown to me. Is it some kind of "new light" now along with Triune God-men?

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 03:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

Christ was both the Son of God and the Lamb of God. That He was the Lamb of God made our redemption possible; that He was the Son of God made the redemption eternal.

Are you trying to tell us that in Christ there were two persons: the Son of God and the Lamb of God, and on the cross one person replaced another? And I wonder if it is your teaching, or it is now accepted teaching in LC? When I was there such heresy was unknown to me. Is it some kind of "new light" now along with Triune God-men?

I believe I have already answered your question. In my other post, I clearly specified that the "Son of God," "Son of Man," "Jesus," and the "Lamb of God" pertain to the second Person of the Triune God, Who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

In order to comfort you on this teaching, an excerpt from the Life Study of Genesis by Brother Witness Lee is posted below. Please notice the sequence of verses John 1:14 (Son of God) and John 1:29 (Lamb of God) how the Lord Jesus Christ was addressed.

Quote:

Isaac was replaced by a ram, that is, by a lamb. Verse 13 says, "Abraham lifted up his eyes, and looked, and behold behind him a ram caught in a thicket by his horns: and Abraham went and took the ram, and offered him up for a burnt offering in the stead of his son." Here we see that the son was not killed, but the ram, the lamb, was. Who was killed on the cross—the Son of God or the Lamb of God? It was the Lamb of God who was killed. Christ is the Son of God, but when He was killed on the cross, He was replaced by the Lamb of God. John 1:14, speaking of the Son of God, says, "We beheld His glory, glory as of an only begotten from a father." But John 1:29 says, "Behold, the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world!" Here we see that the Son of God was replaced by the Lamb of God. The Lamb of God, not the Son of God, was crucified. In crucifixion, the Son was replaced by a ram.

YP0534 · 07-30-2008, 04:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

I believe I have already answered your question. In my other post, I clearly specified that the "Son of God," "Son of Man," "Jesus," and the "Lamb of God" pertain to the second Person of the Triune God, Who is the Lord Jesus Christ.

In order to comfort you on this teaching, an excerpt from the Life Study of Genesis by Brother Witness Lee is posted below. Please notice the sequence of verses John 1:14 (Son of God) and John 1:29 (Lamb of God) how the Lord Jesus Christ was addressed.

I can actually understand this concept of replacement now and it is yet another example of looseness in the speaking.

It is a consideration of the interplay between the divinity and the humanity of the Lord Jesus in the context of the crucifixion.

A better way of approaching this "replacement" concept might be as follows:

In a sense, it was not the eternal Son of God Himself who died upon the Cross, for surely, as the eternal God, He was no mortal, had no blood, and neither could He die. Rather, it was in His spotless humanity, which was just as weak as our own, that Christ was offered as the sacrificial Lamb of God through His substitutionary death. In a sense, this is the reality of the type of Abraham offering the ram in Isaac's stead. As the Lamb of God, Christ in His humanity was the sacrifice who could "replace" the Son of God in His divinity as the offering that could satisfy God. As the Son of God only, He could never have accomplished the work of redemption. But as the Lamb of God, He was fully qualified and He did die for us.

Nevertheless, our marvelous Christ is both the Lamb of God and the Son of God! Having once laid aside His glory to take on a human body, that human body was then brought into glory in resurrection! In symbol, Isaac was brought back from the dead but that ram, once sacrificed, was never brought back to life. Only by being both the Son of God and the Lamb of God could Christ become the Lamb of God forever seated at the right hand of God as the Son of God. He is the unique and eternal sacrifice by being both the Lamb of God and the Son of God.

Something more balanced like that.

Paul Miletus · 07-30-2008, 04:50 AM

Amen! YP0534!

Many thanks.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 04:55 AM

YP0534, can you tell me where the quote is taken from?

YP0534 · 07-30-2008, 06:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

YP0534, can you tell me where the quote is taken from?

It is not a quote.

I wrote it.

KSA · 07-30-2008, 06:25 AM

Oops, I am sorry

It was in another font size, so I thought it was a quote.

YP0534 · 07-30-2008, 07:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Amen! YP0534!

Many thanks.

You did realize I intended my post as a corrective and balancing word to brother Lee's message in the Genesis Life-Study that you quoted?

Or, at a minimum, to your quotation of that?

I think it is clear that Lee's teaching is profitable at least up to a certain point but, regardless of your view of that, his teaching obviously has not exhausted the riches of Christ for us to know and enjoy and we simply must endeavor to see more and see further and not be improperly limited or governed by his interpretations.

I really think it's the difference between receiving Lee and being "of" Lee.

Ohio · 07-30-2008, 10:06 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

It is not a quote.

I wrote it.

Marvelous!

Paul Miletus · 08-01-2008, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

You did realize I intended my post as a corrective and balancing word to brother Lee's message in the Genesis Life-Study that you quoted?

Or, at a minimum, to your quotation of that?

I think it is clear that Lee's teaching is profitable at least up to a certain point but, regardless of your view of that, his teaching obviously has not exhausted the riches of Christ for us to know and enjoy and we simply must endeavor to see more and see further and not be improperly limited or governed by his interpretations.

I really think it's the difference between receiving Lee and being "of" Lee.

Do you believe then what you have just written? If your answer is yes, how I wished the other posters in this Forum will also say, Amen!

Or, do you just really "intended my post as a corrective and balancing word to brother Lee's message in the Genesis Life-Study"?

YP0534 · 08-01-2008, 02:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Paul Miletus

Do you believe then what you have just written? If your answer is yes, how I wished the other posters in this Forum will also say, Amen!

Or, do you just really "intended my post as a corrective and balancing word to brother Lee's message in the Genesis Life-Study"?

Brother Paul.

Do you really think it is possible to merely manufacture such things out of a good human brain?

And just so that you know it, I have received a couple of private Amens.

Paul Miletus · 08-01-2008, 02:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by YP0534

Brother Paul.

Do you really think it is possible to merely manufacture such things out of a good human brain?

And just so that you know it, I have received a couple of private Amens.

Amen!

NeitherFirstnorLast · 06-19-2011, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KSA

LC has many problems, but the accusation of modalism is plain ridiculous.

Plain ridiculous? Well, let's define Modalism...

Modalism: The doctrine that the persons of the Trinity represent only three modes or aspects of the divine revelation, not distinct and coexisting persons in the divine nature. (The Free Dictionary)

"Modalism is probably the most common theological error concerning the nature of God. It is a denial of the Trinity which states that God is a single person who, throughout biblical history, has revealed Himself in three modes, or forms. Thus, God is a single person who first manifested himself in the mode of the Father in Old Testament times. At the incarnation, the mode was the Son. After Jesus' ascension, the mode is the Holy Spirit. These modes are consecutive and never simultaneous. In other words, the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit never all exist at the same time, only one after another. Modalism denies the distinctiveness of the three persons in the Trinity even though it retains the divinity of Christ." (CARM)

Alright, now let's consider a LSM Hymn... let's try:

Hymn 1113: "Now the Triune God has come to Dwell Within"

3rd stanza "Jesus Christ the Lord is living now in us
As the wonderful Spirit within.
He has been tranfigured, we enjoy Him thus,
As the life-giving Spirit within.

Chorus: "God is in the Son, the Son's the Spirit now -
He's the wonderful Spirit in us."

This LSM Hymn clearly states that Jesus Christ was tranfigured into the Holy Spirit and in this way He now resides in us.

transfigure [trænsˈfɪgə]
vb (usually tr) 1. to change or cause to change in appearance
2. to become or cause to become more exalted

So this LSM Hymn clearly teaches that Christ changed and BECAME the Spirit.

The Father was in Him, and now He's the Spirit. That's Modalism.

..But what does the Bible say?

Hebrews 13:8 "Jesus Christ the same yesterday, and to day, and for ever." This teaching about transfiguration flies in the face of this verse.

Luke 24:39 "See my hands and my feet, that it is I myself: handle me, and see; for a spirit hath not flesh and bones, as ye behold me having." He was NOT raised from the dead as a Spirit - He was FLESH AND BONES.

Acts 1:11 "They also said, "Men of Galilee, why do you stand looking into the sky? This Jesus, who has been taken up from you into heaven, will come in just the same way as you have watched Him go into heaven."
Christ did not come to reside inside men, as this Hymn teaches - rather He ascended bodily into Heaven to be seated at the right hand of the Father, from whence He will come again just as He left (on the clouds with great power and glory -Rev 1:7)

John 14:16 "I will ask the Father, and He will give you another Helper, that He may be with you forever"

Christ clearly stated that the Spirit which was to come was "another helper" - and by another, He clearly said it was not Himself (as the aspect of the Son in the trinity).

...So I ask you: How is what LSM says in this Hymn of theirs in line with Scripture? They pay lip service to Trinitarianism, the same as they pay lip service to non-sectarianism... then they go and teach these Modalistic ideas and make of themselves a sect that will not interact with other Christians who meet outside of the authority of Anaheim.

But admittedly, if you corner them, they will surely tell you that they aren't Modalists. They'll also tell you they are not sectarian.... And if you suggest otherwise, then you are an Opposer and you will be Quarantined.

UntoHim · 06-23-2011, 09:07 PM

Hey guys, I ran across this and thought it might be a good conversation starter - along with what NFnL has posted.

I have highlighted the parts I think are applicable to our discussions regarding the LC's teaching regarding the "Triune God".

I actually think this guy does a much better job of explaining the "experiential" side of the Trinity then Lee did - and this is only a small excerpt from a blog!

I really don't think Witness Lee was, at heart, a true modalist - at least if we are to take him at his word. As many have stated, much of the problem comes from his confusing and contradictory statements, and this has lead to a lot of the criticisms and challenges we see coming from the evangelical/orthodox christian community (as in http://www.open-letter.org/ )

Anyway, check out this excerpt from this guy.
http://baxterkruger.blogspot.com/

"...Real problems arise when we separate the great New Testament themes from Jesus himself. They then become abstract, non-relational and impersonal concepts, devoid of the life and relationship of the blessed Trinity. They become commodities or things that we can possess or manipulate or control apart from Jesus himself. Salvation becomes a legal exchange rather than an ongoing relationship of shared life in our darkness. The further these ideas are removed from Jesus himself, the more they are separated from each other as well. We end up with a vision of the kingdom of God, of salvation, of eternal life, and of adoption, which have little in common. But when we think of these great themes from a center in Jesus himself and his own life and relationship with his Father and the Holy Spirit, they become unique expressions of Jesus and of his relationship with the human race and creation.

Jesus teaches us that eternal life is not possession of an infinite battery pack, but knowing his Father through him. “And this is eternal life, that they may know You, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent” (John 17:3). “And we know that the Son of God has come, and has given us understanding, in order that we might know Him who is true, and we are in Him who is true, in His Son Jesus Christ. This is the true God and eternal life" (1John 5:20). Eternal life speaks first and foremost to the quality of our existence, not to its duration. It is abounding or super-abounding life, as Jesus said (John 10:10), which is so "alive" it cannot be extinguished, but endures forever. And this life is not something altogether different from that of the Triune God. It is the trinitarian life itself, shared with us relationally in and through Jesus. Eternal life is the thriving, flourishing, rich and unencumbered life that comes to expression in us as we know the Father himself with his Son in the Spirit, not in isolation, but together with others. This life is not self-centered, but other-centered. Fueled by freedom to love and to be loved in fellowship, which comes from knowing Jesus’ Father, this life overflows in goodness and joy, and in freedom to give ourselves for the benefit of others. Such life could not possibly be contained, but overflows into our relationship with all creation.

Salvation involves both a retrospective and prospective dimension, as John McLeod Campbell said. Retrospectively, salvation focuses on the removal or overcoming of sin and its consequences. Prospectively, it focuses on renewal and the giving of life. Dying a humiliating death in the embrace of a thousand disgusted faces, Jesus submitted himself to our sin and iniquity thereby becoming “the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world” (John 1:29). He takes away our sin by bearing and suffering it personally, by enduring our scorn and bitter rejection, by dying in our hatred. And he was not alone. In submitting himself to suffer such injustice and brutal murder at our hands, Jesus not only made himself the scapegoat for our ills, but he was making our alien humanity the dwelling of the Holy Spirit. He was ushering into our great darkness his own relationship with his Father (life) and his own anointing with Holy Spirit (baptism). He is both the Lamb of God who takes away the sin of the world, and “the one who baptizes in the Holy Spirit” (John 1:33). In him we are both justified and adopted, our sin is overcome and we are included in the eternal life of the blessed Trinity.

In this way the trinitarian life set up shop, so to speak, on earth, in our death and hell, the new relationship was established with broken sinners, real ‘knowing’ of the Father was opened in our darkness, and the Holy Spirit “accustomed Himself” to dwell in our flesh, to borrow a great phrase from Irenaeus, . Such is the kingdom of God—and eternal life, salvation, justification, adoption, the new covenant, heaven. They are all about Jesus himself and what became of the blessed Trinity, and to us, and to creation in him.

Thank you, Holy Spirit. We will have more light, please." (all empasis mine)

Posted by C. Baxter Kruger

OBW · 06-24-2011, 06:18 AM

Having just read UntoHim’s most recent post, then looking back at NFL’s post from just a few days ago, I was reminded of two things.

First was another of my historical destructions of song lyrics. I’m not sure that this one was entirely original, but I recall all the way back to my single days (I was married before leaving the LRC) and my brother and I, along with another LRC friend (who is also now out) would have a little fun with the litany of strung-together phrases so common with the LRC by deconstructing what is evidently no longer in a ring-bound supplement, but #1113 in the hymnal:

Oh He’s the wonderful seven-fold intensified spirit in our spirit in us
He’s the wonderful seven-fold intensified spirit in our spirit in us
. . . .

You really need to have the acuity in diction of a TV pitch-man to get it all in there. But you get the picture.

But the other thing it reminded me of was something I recently read in a book I had decided to read in an effort to understand a somewhat postmodern Christian writer. The book is a Generous Orthodoxy by Brian McLaren.

There is ultimately much to be said about McLaren and this book in particular (not all positive), but in chapter 1 he begins to lay out the divergent views of Jesus that the various groupings of Christians seem to display in the core of their liturgy, worship, and practice. When he comes to the Eastern Orthodox, he makes an interesting observation. Unfortunately, he never directly puts it into a good snippet to quote, but the essence is that the Eastern Orthodox view of the Trinity is “not . . . an abstract exercise in theological hairsplitting, but . . . an introduction to a powerful and dynamic view of God.” (p. 55) They very willfully deal with the trinity as Father, Son, and Spirit. A Father who does Fatherly things. A Son who comes among us — comes near. And a Spirit who dwells with and within us. Their celebration of Christmas is said to focus on what they consider the most important part of the entire “life and work of Christ” and that is that God came to earth. He was born among us.

The Father did not do that. Neither did the Spirit. And while the Spirit is even closer to us now than Jesus was as flesh and blood, the Spirit did not have the flesh and blood experience. The Son did.

And Lee would, as I previously wrote elsewhere, turn that into “Trinity Stew.” Make there be nothing particular about anything in the Trinity worth mentioning. Just everything is everything else.

Like the song whose chorus goes something like:

All in all together
Only Christ I’ll sing
Everything is in Christ
And Christ is everything

(I probably messed up the first line, but it is close enough.) The words are true enough. But within the whole of the LRC ministry, the verses more clearly state how they one-by-one ignore the good gifts of God and become ascetics in a monastery, isolated from the goodness of God and the truth of the life that Jesus called us to. They despise the blessing. They despise the healing. They despise the gift. Yes the giver, the healer and the one who blesses are more than important. But we have nothing to praise God for if we don’t even see that he has given us those praiseworthy things.

Features that become featureless. Makes me want to shout “hallelujah; my God has so many wonderful attributes that I am not allowed to identify but instead just taste this amorphous stew and consider the ingredients that have disappeared into it as being nothing in themselves.”

I don’t need grace. I just need Jesus. I don’t need the love of the Father. I just need the wonderful triune God. I don’t need comfort from the Spirit. I just need more dispensing of the triune God.

Hogwash!! Those things are not heralded in scripture so that some pathetic wanna-be oracle can blend them away. The writer (not the writers, but the Writer) of the scripture had many specific things to say. He must be furious with a self-proclaimed oracle who obliterates the specific into meaningless run-on phrases.

zeek · 07-22-2011, 08:56 AM

I will reiterate the question that I raised on the berean website a few weeks ago. Could the problem be that neither the orthodox teaching of the Trinity, nor Witness Lee's teaching regarding the Triune God are logically coherent theologies? If so, we can, at best, hold that the Trinity/Triune God is a symbol for a divine mystery and paradox that can be believed but not explained or understood. Perhaps the mistake we make is to look upon the Christian faith a doctrine to believe in intellectually, rather than a mystery to be entered into and participated in. If it is the latter, then arguing over who's teaching on the Trinity/Triune God is right is foolish.

awareness · 07-22-2011, 10:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zeek

I will reiterate the question that I raised on the berean website a few weeks ago. Could the problem be that neither the orthodox teaching of the Trinity, nor Witness Lee's teaching regarding the Triune God are logically coherent theologies? If so, we can, at best, hold that the Trinity/Triune God is a symbol for a divine mystery and paradox that can be believed but not explained or understood. Perhaps the mistake we make is to look upon the Christian faith a doctrine to believe in intellectually, rather than a mystery to be entered into and participated in. If it is the latter, then arguing over who's teaching on the Trinity/Triune God is right is foolish.

"I am that I am." Or more correctly, perhaps, "I shall be what I shall be." Either way God is basically saying, "It's none of your damn business who I am," and also maybe "kiss my behind."

Ohio · 07-22-2011, 10:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

"I am that I am." Or more correctly, perhaps, "I shall be what I shall be." Either way God is basically saying, "It's none of your damn business who I am," and also maybe "kiss my behind."

A doubtful interpretation ...

awareness · 07-22-2011, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

A doubtful interpretation ...

ROTFLMAO ... But really bro Ohio, who do we think we are? Do we really think we can figure God? If we had spiritual math, that could work spiritual formulas, maybe I'd give that notion some cred.

But we don't. We only see these things from the bottom up. If we could see them from the top down we'd probably laugh at ourselves for thinking we could ever figure God.

zeek · 07-22-2011, 11:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

"I am that I am." Or more correctly, perhaps, "I shall be what I shall be." Either way God is basically saying, "It's none of your damn business who I am," and also maybe "kiss my behind."

A colorful way of putting it my friend. A God who hides "himself" perhaps?
Isaiah 45:15

King James Version (KJV)

Verily thou art a God that hidest thyself, O God of Israel, the Saviour.

ToGodAlone · 07-22-2011, 12:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

ROTFLMAO ... But really bro Ohio, who do we think we are? Do we really think we can figure God? If we had spiritual math, that could work spiritual formulas, maybe I'd give that notion some cred.

But we don't. We only see these things from the bottom up. If we could see them from the top down we'd probably laugh at ourselves for thinking we could ever figure God.

As "crude" as some people may think your initial statement was, this statement is pretty accurate. We're not ever going to figure out God while on earth. It's physically impossible.

Ohio · 07-22-2011, 02:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ToGodAlone

As "crude" as some people may think your initial statement was, this statement is pretty accurate. We're not ever going to figure out God while on earth. It's physically impossible.

That's why all attempts at "figure Him out" or to try to "theologize" Him are just misguided and impossible.

We can, however, know Him, know His ways, know His word, know His commands to us personally, know answers to prayer, etc.

Cal · 07-23-2011, 12:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

That's why all attempts at "figure Him out" or to try to "theologize" Him are just misguided and impossible.

We can, however, know Him, know His ways, know His word, know His commands to us personally, know answers to prayer, etc.

I don't think we can completely figure Him out, but we can know some things, and Triuneness definitely tells us some things.

Unity in diversity, diversity in unity.

Both the individual and the group are important.

Individuals have different roles, but none is more important than the other.

Ultimately the meaning of life is in relationships.

All of this springs from the very nature of God. The universe reflects it because the universe expresses God,and mankind is at the center of this.

Ohio · 07-23-2011, 12:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

I don't think we can completely figure Him out, but we can know some things, and Triuneness definitely tells us some things.

Unity in diversity, diversity in unity.

Both the individual and the group are important.

Individuals have different roles, but none is more important than the other.

Ultimately the meaning of life is in relationships.

All of this springs from the very nature of God. The universe reflects it because the universe expresses God,and mankind is at the center of this.

Would you please have a talk with my good friend awareness.

awareness · 07-23-2011, 03:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Would you please have a talk with my good friend awareness.

Yes tell me of a "fixed" geocentric earth, as depicted in the inerrant Bible.

And allude to Psalms 19:1 -- that speaks of the dome over the flat earth, hammered out by God's hands, like brass into a dish ; where heaven back then was conceived to be just beyond ; where Jesus went when he ascended, just beyond the dome over the flat earth -- the firmament or vault -- as the writers of the Bible saw things back then.

So we know better now. The earth is not fixed like the Bible says :

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Neither it is the center of the universe.

We know better now but still can't give up the notion that "man is the center of God's universe." The human ego is like a arrogant superhero that can't die.

Ohio · 07-23-2011, 04:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Yes tell me of a "fixed" geocentric earth, as depicted in the inerrant Bible.

And allude to Psalms 19:1 -- that speaks of the dome over the flat earth, hammered out by God's hands, like brass into a dish ; where heaven back then was conceived to be just beyond ; where Jesus went when he ascended, just beyond the dome over the flat earth -- the firmament or vault -- as the writers of the Bible saw things back then.

So we know better now. The earth is not fixed like the Bible says :

I Chronicles 16:30: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable."
Psalm 93:1: "Thou hast fixed the earth immovable and firm..."
Psalm 96:10: "He has fixed the earth firm, immovable..."
Psalm 104:5: "Thou didst fix the earth on its foundation so that it never can be shaken."
Isaiah 45:18: "...who made the earth and fashioned it, and himself fixed it fast..."

Neither it is the center of the universe.

We know better now but still can't give up the notion that "man is the center of God's universe." The human ego is like a arrogant superhero that can't die.

Let's all sing together ...

O I'm a man --
I'm the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I'm a man --
I'm the meaning of the universe;
God made me such,
I am so much;
I'm the center and the meaning of the universe. -- #1293

awareness and I will stand and sing verse one again ...

O I'm a man --
I'm the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I'm a man --
I'm the meaning of the universe;
God made me such,
I am so much;
I'm the center and the meaning of the universe.

Sisters on verse two with a strong spirit!

awareness · 07-23-2011, 05:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Let's all sing together ...

O I'm a man --
I'm the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I'm a man --
I'm the meaning of the universe;
God made me such,
I am so much;
I'm the center and the meaning of the universe. -- #1293

awareness and I will stand and sing verse one again ...

O I'm a man --
I'm the meaning of the universe;
Yes, I'm a man --
I'm the meaning of the universe;
God made me such,
I am so much;
I'm the center and the meaning of the universe.

Sisters on verse two with a strong spirit!

And there you have it bro Ohio. I'm the center of God's universe...and no one else is...

ToGodAlone · 07-23-2011, 05:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And there you have it bro Ohio. I'm the center of God's universe...and no one else is...

Misinterpretation? It's supposed to say that humans are the meaning of the universe in God's eyes. It's worded a bit oddly though so that interpretation of yours (serious or not) is pretty easy to come by.

Ohio · 07-23-2011, 07:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

And there you have it bro Ohio. I'm the center of God's universe...and no one else is...

I thought you might enjoy singing the old song with me. Can you carry a tune?

awareness · 07-23-2011, 08:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I thought you might enjoy singing the old song with me. Can you carry a tune?

Of course, unlike Witness Lee, I'm kidding. I'm not the center of God's universe. I'm more like a pimple on the butt end of God's creation, or seems I'm that way when compared to the expanse of the universe.

And now that it comes to mind, has everyone seen the powers of ten on the web?

Check it out at :

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...su/powersof10/

Let it run automatically first ... get the whole picture generally ... then click the Manual button and take it slowly. It is amazing ... In God's universe we are the smallest of specks.

zeek · 07-25-2011, 09:05 AM

I enjoyed powers of 10 clip. Here is a symbolic representation of the same phenomenon: http://viewfromthecenter.com/files/i...oros-color.jpg The universe is far greater than people realized in biblical times. It was less than 90 years that Edwin Hubble made observations that proved conclusively that nebulae were much too distant to be part of the Milky Way and were, in fact, entire galaxies outside our own. So, if there is a creator God, that God is far greater than the ancients realized too. Humanity is really only on the threshold of understanding the cosmos.

Quote:

Originally Posted by awareness

Of course, unlike Witness Lee, I'm kidding. I'm not the center of God's universe. I'm more like a pimple on the butt end of God's creation, or seems I'm that way when compared to the expanse of the universe.

And now that it comes to mind, has everyone seen the powers of ten on the web?

Check it out at :

http://micro.magnet.fsu.edu/primer/j...su/powersof10/

Let it run automatically first ... get the whole picture generally ... then click the Manual button and take it slowly. It is amazing ... In God's universe we are the smallest of specks.

Abounding · 10-12-2011, 10:30 AM

It is modalism if the same God became or transformed into the Son and then the Spirit. It is not modalism if the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. Right?

OBW · 10-12-2011, 11:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abounding

It is modalism if the same God became or transformed into the Son and then the Spirit. It is not modalism if the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. Right?

I would suggest that it is not that simple either way.

But I would also suggest that unless you intend to say that there is simply one God who left heaven entirely to become the visible Son in the Middle East at what we now consider the transition from BC to AD, then left that to become the Spirit, then it probably is truly modalism. Does that warrant a claim that you are not Christian? Probably not.

But modalism is not the point of this thread anyway.

Ohio · 10-12-2011, 01:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abounding

It is modalism if the same God became or transformed into the Son and then the Spirit. It is not modalism if the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. Right?

JustynM from the other forum is convinced that WL and all current and former members are all modalists, and thus should all be considered a cult. The Bible has fewer demands than the Berean management.

Cal · 10-13-2011, 08:28 AM

I wanted to point out something about this modalism subject.

Modalism properly defined is the teaching that the Father, Son and Holy Spirit identified by the Trinity doctrine are actually different modes or aspects of the One God, as perceived by the believer, rather than three co-eternal persons in God Himself.

Plainly Witness Lee did not teach this. However, Lee did teach things which suggest modalism and, I shall argue here, led to some of the problems which modalism leads to.

Why is it important to have a correct understanding of the Trinity in the first place? Does it matter? Clearly we want to be as close in our beliefs to the revealed truth of the Bible as possible, and the nature of God cannot be a trivial subject. Yet the Bible never suggests that having an incorrect understanding of God's triune nature is necessary for salvation. So what is the point of it, other than simply being correct?

I suggest that the point is that the nature of God is that from which our understanding of many truths springs, particularly in this case the proper relationship of unity and diversity, which has monumental impact on our view of man as individual and as members of society and the Church.

Stress the threeness of the One too much, and you not only risk lapsing into the vile heresy of multiple Gods, you also cut the cords of any claim that mankind should be one.

Stress the oneness of the Three too much, and you undermine the importance of the individual and the diversity of the group. This was the error of the LRC. I don't think it is any coincidence that their Trinity doctrine and their Church unity doctrine both go to an extreme when stressing oneness. I believe the latter sprang from the former. The disregard of the individual and diversity in the LRC sprang directly from the de-emphasis of the diversity in the Trinity. When they claimed the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, they laid the groundwork for saying differences between believers and churches should be suspect and eliminated as much as possible as well.

The Trinity is our essential clue for understanding that at the very core of the nature of Reality is the principle of the one and the many, the individual and the group. The group is one and defines the boundaries of the individual's purpose. The individual finds his meaning, not in himself, but in the group. But he is not subsumed by the group, he is part of it and helps define what it is. The individual is not the starting point, the starting point is that the individual's purpose is found in relation to others. Without respecting contributions of the individual and the individuality he needs to retain to even make a meaningful contribution, the group loses a key essence and becomes a shell.

The LRC ran roughshod over this truth, defining the group as all and the individual as next to nothing. In doing so they have manifested the fruit of this error, running roughshod over individuals, treating them as interchangeable and expendable, damaging lives, families, reputations, real people. That behavior springs directly from their view of the Trinity, which is why the error of modalism is a serious error, and why Witness Lee's modalism-skirting teachings are a problem as well.

UntoHim · 10-13-2011, 09:20 AM

Thanks to Igzy for digging this thread up, it suits Abounding's question much better then the other one. I've transferred that post and the few that followed over this this more appropriate thread

Cal · 10-13-2011, 09:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thanks to Igzy for digging this thread up, it suits Abounding's question much better then the other one. I've transferred that post and the few that followed over this this more appropriate thread

I used this one because I couldn't find that one.

UntoHim · 10-13-2011, 10:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

JustynM from the other forum is convinced that WL and all current and former members are all modalists, and thus should all be considered a cult. The Bible has fewer demands than the Berean management.

I think it may be helpful to understand that just because somebody is under the ministry of someone who teaches heresy, that does NOT make them a heretic. Only the person who actually teaches heresy should be considered a heretic.

Furthermore, in my view, there are degrees or shades of heresy. Some heresy may take the form of gross misinterpretation and misuse of the scriptures. I think many, if not most, of the "heresies" (open for debate!) taught by Witness Lee fall under this category of misinterpretation and misuse of the scriptures.

A glaring, red-letter example of this is Witness Lee's teachings regarding the trinity - they are at the very least extremely contradictory and confusing, and this has lead to the somewhat "confused" question by our friend Abounding.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abounding

It is modalism if the same God became or transformed into the Son and then the Spirit. It is not modalism if the Father, Son, and Spirit are eternal. Right?

Like OBW says

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

I would suggest that it is not that simple either way.

Witness Lee tried to make it simple by saying that Isaiah 9:6 say that the Father is called the Son and that 1 Corinthians 15:45 says the Son became the Spirit. It does not help that these are the very same verses used by many of the "Jesus only" proponents, such as the Oneness Pentecostals.

Please note that these are my personal views and not the "official position" of this forum. The official position of this forum is that anybody's view is just as official as the next. Everybody's arguments will rise and fall upon there own merit, especially when it comes to proposals and contentions placed here in the apologetic discussions board.

Ohio · 10-13-2011, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Stress the threeness of the One too much, and you not only risk lapsing into the vile heresy of multiple Gods, you also cut the cords of any claim that mankind should be one.

Stress the oneness of the Three too much, and you undermine the importance of the individual and the diversity of the group. This was the error of the LRC. I don't think it is any coincidence that their Trinity doctrine and their Church unity doctrine both go to an extreme when stressing oneness.I believe the latter sprang from the former. The disregard of the individual and diversity in the LRC sprang directly from the de-emphasis of the diversity in the Trinity. When they claimed the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit, they laid the groundwork for saying differences between believers and churches should be suspect and eliminated as much as possible as well.

Good observations.

There is also a good case to be made that WL's oneness theology sprung up from the ground of oneness teaching. Recovery oneness ideologies, i.e. ground of locality teachings and practices, among the Brethren and Chinese LC assemblies were firmly entrenched long before WL launched his Trinity theology in the USA.

I seem to remember a comment made by poster Hope about WL's initial "near-modalism" teachings back in the late 60's. IIRC, Hope's observation of WL's teaching was, to the effect, that initial complaints of "modalism" from outsiders could have been clarified in the formative stages of the teaching. Instead of accepting some adjusting critique, WL dug in the more fiercely, and built a hardened fortress around his teaching.

Let me add more to your observations. Whether Trinity oneness theology or church oneness theology came first, both teachings were used and misused by WL for his own self-serving interests. As you have said, "The disregard of the individual and diversity in the LRC sprang directly from the de-emphasis of the diversity in the Trinity." This helps to explain why so many dear brothers and sisters have been hurt over the years. WL's teachings of distorted oneness of the body of Christ also robbed elders of their responsibility to shepherd the flock according to the Head. All this benefited no one but WL and his ministry.

OBW · 10-13-2011, 11:47 AM

For me, one of the most misused arguments by Lee was that too much emphasis on the Three would risk becoming tritheist. The more I look at scripture and the more I consider what is actually believed by so many Christians, I do not believe that to be true. Instead I believe it to be a statement made for the purpose of driving a wedge between Lee and other teachers.

What I find in the New Testament is an almost constant evidence of the Three. Jesus is sent, as is the Spirit. Jesus refers to the Father as separate from himself. Saying that they are one does not cause the separateness to disappear. And God, the ultimate writer of the NT seems to go to great lengths to provide "jobs" for three "persons." And, as is so often admitted in the discussion of whether Jesus actually is God, Jesus definitely said it, but in an indirect manner. And it was the few while the references to the Father as being someone else are the many.

And Paul never said that Christ became the Holy Spirit. That is nonsense. An error of contextonomy.

I know that we argued with Justyn about the One God being a person because God is personal and non-persons just aren't personal. I do not disagree with that. But I find that the account of the NT, including all the things that Jesus said, mostly point me to see the Three in terms of relationship with man. It seems that it really is through the Three that God interacts with man. So focusing on the three almost seems to be the most important thing for us today. And arguing that they are simply one is to argue against the weight of evidence in the NT that the Three are almost more important to our daily living that the One.

I can hear it now. Mike has gone tritheist on us. Hogwash. I just acknowledge what is actually revealed without a need to rephrase it, repackage it, or deny it. And it is that there is a Father in heaven, a Son who came to live among us and be the ultimate sacrifice for our sins, and a Spirit that indwells us. This is the face of the One God that I believe and (hopefully) serve.

Cal · 10-13-2011, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Good observations.

There is also a good case to be made that WL's oneness theology sprung up from the ground of oneness teaching. Recovery oneness ideologies, i.e. ground of locality teachings and practices, among the Brethren and Chinese LC assemblies were firmly entrenched long before WL launched his Trinity theology in the USA.

Perhaps it might have been better if I had put it this way: Witness Lee was so sold on "oneness" that he over-imposed it on all his theology, including the Trinity. But once he over-imposed it on the Trinity, an essential clue of the importance of diversity was removed from the minds of his followers. God was one much more than three in Lee's world, so it seemed to follow that the Church should be one much more than many.

Cal · 10-13-2011, 12:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by OBW

For me, one of the most misused arguments by Lee was that too much emphasis on the Three would risk becoming tritheist.

Yes, horrors! And what's funny about this is to actually ask how many Christians, really, fall into tritheism? I've never known of any.

Oh, I know Lee said they "act" as if there are three Gods. But what does that mean to "act" as if? To treat the Father, Son and Spirit as if they are really, in some sense, three? What else are we supposed to do?

OBW · 10-13-2011, 12:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, horrors! And what's funny about this is to actually ask how many Christians, really, fall into tritheism? I've never known of any.

Oh, I know Lee said they "act" as if there are three Gods. But was does that mean to "act" as if? To treat the Father, Son and Spirit as if they are really, in some sense, three? What else are we supposed to do?

That is the real question. If you aren't supposed to deal with God in the form of Three Persons, then why did God spend so much ink on it?

Ohio · 10-13-2011, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes, horrors! And what's funny about this is to actually ask how many Christians, really, fall into tritheism? I've never known of any.

Oh, I know Lee said they "act" as if there are three Gods. But what does that mean to "act" as if? To treat the Father, Son and Spirit as if they are really, in some sense, three? What else are we supposed to do?

I remember Benny Hinn promoting his book about the Holy Spirit, with the premise that the HS was long neglected by the church, and needed to to be appreciated and worshiped apart from the Father and the Son. This to me bordered on Tri-theism.

Ohio · 10-13-2011, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Perhaps it might have been better if I had put it this way: Witness Lee was so sold on "oneness" that he over-imposed it on all his theology, including the Trinity. But once he over-imposed it on the Trinity, an essential clue of the importance of diversity was removed from the minds of his followers. God was one much more than three in Lee's world, so it seemed to follow that the Church should be one much more than many.

Distorted oneness has long been used to usurp power and lord it over the flock. It started out with WL saying that the whole of Christianity was hopelessly and helplessly divided. They had utterly failed God. Thus only he properly cared for what God originally intended.

Nothing exemplified your thought more than WL's expositions on Philadelphia and Laodicia. Phily was where the brothers were all in one accord, with one mind and one heart, speaking the same thing. Laodicea was the place where brothers were individuals, having diverse views and opinions, thus the Lord rebuked them severely.

But the Bible speaks differently. We don't love the brothers as in Phily because we are all the same, neither does our diversity make us proud and arrogant as in Laodicea.

Abounding · 10-13-2011, 06:44 PM

I am loving reading your posts. Still trying to thoroughly get thru them all. Thank you so much!

Cal · 10-14-2011, 07:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I remember Benny Hinn promoting his book about the Holy Spirit, with the premise that the HS was long neglected by the church, and needed to to be appreciated and worshiped apart from the Father and the Son. This to me bordered on Tri-theism.

Yeah, I remember that. He was right that the HS had been neglected, but his solution was a mistake.

UntoHim · 10-14-2011, 08:58 AM

Thank God Benny Hinn is not held up as the standard of Christian orthodoxy. Actually Hinn has been exposed big time as a fraud and a teacher of all sorts of strange and heretical things. I think Hinn leans toward the "Jesus only" camp - Jesus IS the Father and Jesus IS the Holy Spirit. Like many false teachers, Hinn also teaches as if he was an evangelical/orthodox teacher.

Abounding · 10-16-2011, 03:47 PM

Wow I feel like I have been on a journey lately to see the Triune God as he is. A mystery indeed, but one I will still seek to solve even though I know I probably never will. Who is right? Is it the teaching of WL? ( A teaching I would not dare question until a year ago.) Is it the BARM right? or some other teaching. I have been asking and seeking and enjoying. I think if you say that you are right and no one else is, is to say that you understand the Triune God. You are no longer allowing yourself to go any deeper. Peel away that onion. I think maybe they are all right. The Father is the son yet he is not. The Son is the Spirit yet he is not. The Father was on the cross and died with the son yet he was not. He is three but He is one. I think all of you are right, but lets keep going deeper. He in inexhaustable!

Cal · 10-17-2011, 08:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Thank God Benny Hinn is not held up as the standard of Christian orthodoxy. Actually Hinn has been exposed big time as a fraud and a teacher of all sorts of strange and heretical things. I think Hinn leans toward the "Jesus only" camp - Jesus IS the Father and Jesus IS the Holy Spirit. Like many false teachers, Hinn also teaches as if he was an evangelical/orthodox teacher.

If you want to read a better book of how the Holy Spirit is neglected in the Church read The Counselor, by A.W. Tozer. Great book, highly recommended, written by someone who actually knew what he was talking about.

Ohio · 10-19-2011, 05:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Abounding

Wow I feel like I have been on a journey lately to see the Triune God as he is. A mystery indeed, but one I will still seek to solve even though I know I probably never will. Who is right? Is it the teaching of WL? ( A teaching I would not dare question until a year ago.) Is it the BARM right? or some other teaching. I have been asking and seeking and enjoying. I think if you say that you are right and no one else is, is to say that you understand the Triune God. You are no longer allowing yourself to go any deeper. Peel away that onion. I think maybe they are all right. The Father is the son yet he is not. The Son is the Spirit yet he is not. The Father was on the cross and died with the son yet he was not. He is three but He is one. I think all of you are right, but lets keep going deeper. He in inexhaustible!

I like expressions like this -- "the Son is the Spirit, yet He is not" -- simply because the Bible basically says both of these. Expressions like this one acknowledges that we understand our God is three-one, yet He is inexhaustible, beyond our ability to understand.

Cal · 10-19-2011, 07:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I like expressions like this -- "the Son is the Spirit, yet He is not" -- simply because the Bible basically says both of these. Expressions like this one acknowledges that we understand our God is three-one, yet He is inexhaustible, beyond our ability to understand.

The Son is the Spirit in the sense that both are God and there is one God. He is not the Spirit in the sense of obliterating any personal distinction between the two.

The Spirit didn't die on the cross for our sins. The Son did. When God stepped into time as a human being only the Son was incarnated.

Imagine it like a three-dimensional being stepping into a two-dimensional world. He cannot exist in the two-dimensional world as a three-dimensional being. Yet he can adapt to it because his three-dimensional world is built upon two-dimensional principles. God is like a cube made of of six sides (only he has three). When the cube steps into the two-dimensional world, it appears as one square, yet is still connected to the rest of the cube. Likewise when God stepped into our world, he appeared as one Person--the Son--yet still part of the Trinity.

The beings in the two-dimensional world can understand the cube as a square, but they can never quite fathom it as a cube, because that plane is totally beyond their experience and points of reference.

I think the Trinity works something like that, only on a personal scale. God is one being that is three persons, like the cube is one figure while being six squares. Two-dimensional beings cannot understand a cube, and won't be able to until they are somehow elevated to the three-dimensional world. Likewise we really can't imagine the Trinity from our frame of reference either.

Any attempt to explain it creates paradoxes. Like when viewing a cube from two-dimensions, some of the angles appear as if they are not 90 degrees when they are 90 degrees. Yet when you adjust the angles to all be 90 degrees, then the figure is no longer a cube. So one says things like "that angle is not 90 degrees, but it is 90 degrees." Likewise with the Trinity we say equally strange-sounding things like "the Son is the Spirit, yet He is not."

UntoHim · 10-19-2011, 07:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

I like expressions like this -- "the Son is the Spirit, yet He is not" -- simply because the Bible basically says both of these. Expressions like this one acknowledges that we understand our God is three-one, yet He is inexhaustible, beyond our ability to understand.

Question for whippersnapper Ohio (and this is NOT a gottcha question, but I am seeking to understand your understanding, if you understand me correctly

)

Where does the Bible say "He is not" (that the Son is not the Spirit)

Ohio · 10-19-2011, 11:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

The Son is the Spirit in the sense that both are God and there is one God. He is not the Spirit in the sense of obliterating any personal distinction between the two.

The Spirit didn't die on the cross for our sins. The Son did. When God stepped into time as a human being only the Son was incarnated.

My understanding goes only as far as indicated in 2 Cor 3.17 and other scripture. It should in no way imply that Jesus did not die on the cross, nor that the Spirit did.

It seems Trinity theology always includes excessive inference. I have always wondered why "all in Asia turned away from Paul." Could it be something so ridiculous as this verse? Could his detractors have branded him a cult heretic for saying "Now the Lord is the Spirit?"

Ohio · 10-19-2011, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Question for whippersnapper Ohio (and this is NOT a gottcha question, but I am seeking to understand your understanding, if you understand me correctly

)

Where does the Bible say "He is not" (that the Son is not the Spirit)

Of course, it does not. Neither does it say that the Son is not the Father.

Since the Bible "usually" distinguishes the Son from the Spirit, I will be labeled a cult heretic if I say it too loudly. :frown:

But if we consider the believers in the Bible, is there a distinction between the Father and the Son and the Spirit within them? We are born of God the Father. Christ lives in us. We are indwelt by the Spirit of God. Is there like 3 different abodes within us for each of the Trinity to inhabit?

The real knowing comes by knowing Him directly. When I first contacted the LC's, verses like Rom 8.6 and I Cor 15.45 had a huge impact on my spiritual walk with the Lord. WL took a lot of heat for the way he taught those verses, but I could care less, then nor now. Here WL was immensely helpful to me and to many others I knew.

Ohio · 10-19-2011, 12:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

Your example is good. I believe the universe is filled with other examples to also help us understand God. We may one day discover an infinite number of applicable analogies concerning the Trinity.

I do believe I am a little different from most believers, however, especially the forum apologetics, concerning the future and the New Jerusalem. I believe that we all will be as men in the resurrection, and God Himself will look like all the rest of us, and His physical appearance will be as He appeared to the disciples, with 5 wounds still evident for eternity, but without a halo or shining lights radiating out. Neither will there be a throne with the Father sitting on it for us to see.

Cal · 10-19-2011, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

My understanding goes only as far as indicated in 2 Cor 3.17 and other scripture. It should in no way imply that Jesus did not die on the cross, nor that the Spirit did.

It seems Trinity theology always includes excessive inference. I have always wondered why "all in Asia turned away from Paul." Could it be something so ridiculous as this verse? Could his detractors have branded him a cult heretic for saying "Now the Lord is the Spirit?"

zeek said something interesting. He said that conceptualizing (by that I take him to mean "verbalizing") the Trinity always leads to implying some kind of heresy. Maybe that's why the NT never doctrinalizes the Trinity.

Cal · 10-19-2011, 01:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

Your example is good. I believe the universe is filled with other examples to also help us understand God. We may one day discover an infinite number of applicable analogies concerning the Trinity.

Like the wave-particle duality of light.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DfPeprQ7oGc

Ohio · 10-19-2011, 05:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Igzy

zeek said something interesting. He said that conceptualizing (by that I take him to mean "verbalizing") the Trinity always leads to implying some kind of heresy. Maybe that's why the NT never doctrinalizes the Trinity.

My personal feeling is that God allows a wide latitude of beliefs in His children concerning how they understand Him. Whether we visualize a distinct and separate Father, Son, and "Uncle Ghost" or lean in the direction of nothing but "Jesus only," has little bearing on His love towards us.

It is those who embrace false gods and reject the sacrifice of His own Beloved Son on the cross, who are the unbelieving ones who must pay the price for their own sins.

zeek has a point. Any attempt to doctrinally systematize who God is will always be labeled as errant.

UntoHim · 10-26-2011, 07:29 PM

http://rzim.vo.llnwd.net/o43/MP3/LMPT/LMP20111022.mp3

Very good message. I would encourage anybody to listen to whole message (it's only 26 minutes), then go back and listen to this part about the Trinity again, maybe two or three times. Zacharias does a very unique and interesting treatment of the Trinity within this message. I have transcribed the applicable part below. This part starts about half way through the message. If you can run it through Real Audio it starts at about the 12:00 minute mark.

--------------------------------------------------------------------
You know, people often say to us, how does one defend the Trinity? Well, how does one defend life? You think we understand life? Yeah, yeah a man and woman come together and the sperm and the egg get together, and then nine months later you’ve got a little life. Oh yeah, we have understood it. Sure. As Francis Collins said, when you look at 3.1 billion bits of information you find out how much there is really we don’t know.

So what I want to say to you is this: Why is it – think with me now – why is it that you and I always lunge towards the relational. Lee Iacocca said in his book straight talk, “here I am in the twilight years of my life still wondering what it’s all about. This much I know, fame and fortune are for the birds!” He said that. He said “but then I look at my children, and I see them, and I know I love them. And I say to myself if you haven’t love your own family what have you really accomplished in life. If you’ve been the head of an automotive empire, and your name is a household name, and your bank account is multiplied millions of times, and you say I look at my children and I say to myself I love them, and if you haven’t loved them what have you really accomplished in life.” You know what he is telling me? The longing in your heart and mine is for a relationship.

And only in the Trinity do you see the reality of God Who is a being in relationship, and we are made after His own image. And until we are related to Him and related to one another, we will never find the fulfillment in the isolated ego of the “I”. God has made us in His own image. You know, when you think of it for just a moment, when a woman is impregnated and at that given moment there are really three DNAs in her body - Husbands, hers and the child’s…and we think we understand it. If there is the possibility with each added dimension, from the first to the second to the third, ultimately from the infinitude to infinitude, is it really that difficult for God to be one in one sense and three in another sense?

Think of it in another way. Suppose God was not a trinity. Suppose God is a monad, say in as in other concepts. Let me ask you this: Can you really say God is love? Who is He loving? Can you really say God spoke. Who is He speaking to? You end up with an entity who needs other entities in order to fulfill his own proclivities! And that’s why the greatest search of philosophy has always been to find unity in diversity. How do you find unity in diversity? That’s why, by the way, the Greeks came up with universities, to find unity in diversity.

The only way you can find unity and diversity is in the community of the Trinity, where God is a being in relationship, and you and I hunger after relationships. As Augustine(?) said “You have made us for yourself and our hearts are restless until they find their rest in thee” This concept of the Trinity is very unique in the Christian faith.(Poster takes full responsibility for the accuracy of this transcription)

07-12-2008, 05:47 AM	#2
YP0534 Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 688	I always have been and still today now remain very comfortable with the idea that the moderator of a public forum may one day conspire with others, likeminded or not, to have me burned at the stake for rejecting the historical prescribed dogma of Roman Catholicsm and all of its many multiplied descendents and instead accepting each and every one of Lee's teachings on the topic of the Trinity where they are plainly founded on the Bible. Therefore, I'd propose a shift in this inquiry: We should concern ourselves with the question of whether Lee's teachings are in conformity with the scriptures and also whether the "common teachings" themselves are in conformity with the scriptures. My impression is that the dusty old doctrines and creeds of the so-called "Church" are of little to no value in living the reality of the Christian life. If you think they are, then don't call me a Christian if that makes you happy. It is no problem to be different from all the world if all the world is simply wrong. Although I'd concede that Lee got a little loose sometimes in his speaking and that looseness caused him trouble in terms of valid criticism, the ridiculous charges of heresy should be at last put to rest by serious review and comment outside of the "Affirmation and Critique" blind defense of Lee's doctrine. In other words, we can look at issues surrounding "Persons" and "hypostases" and "co-exist and co-inhere" until the Lord returns but that wouldn't really benefit anyone and none of that is fundamentally the Bible anyway. And I for one have absolutely no interest in the topic. Garbage from Lee is no better or worse than garbage from Augustine. Like I said. Kindle the fires. Otherwise, this is my sole contribution: Yes, Lee taught differently from the "common teachings." Definitely, yes. __________________ Let each walk as the Lord has distributed to each, as God has called each, and in this manner I instruct all the assemblies. 1 Cor. 7:17

07-12-2008, 08:18 AM	#3
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	I think that it is in an inquiry like this that we will discover the dogmas of the historical teachings of Christianity, both RCC and Protestant, to be incomplete. Many of us were seeing something of this in the last month of interplay with the BARM’s super-moderators. Without going into the details, after reading the BARM statement on the Trinity over a year ago (written by abugian, I believe) I noticed that it was well written and consistent with most other such writings I have seen previously. But it was mostly dismissive of the verses that demonstrate the oneness and interplay of the Three that are One. There is something mysterious about a “three” with one image. About a God from whom there is stated to be “one Spirit” (Ephesians) yet the references to the Spirit of God, and the Spirit of the Lord (in a discussion about the resurrected Christ). For all my ranting about the errors of Lee, I remember him on more than one occasion referencing the founder of Dallas Theological Seminary’s statement to the effect that we must be careful in the use of the term “person” when describing the Trinity or risk the possibility of falling into the error of tritheism. (I wish someone could find that reference and verify that it was not out of context. Lee was great at taking things out of context.) When you read the words of the BARM on the subject, you are impressed with a God of three persons that share an essence. They stand on the fence the separates Trinitarian from tritheist while holding onto a thin chord called “essence” to keep from falling onto the wrong side. My observation is that Lee mostly did just the opposite, using virtually all of his breath to describe the singular aspects of the One God, holding ever so loosely onto the belief that the event described at Jesus’ baptism was more than some parlor trick to give the illusion of three. There is something mysterious about this God who is fully three and fully one. For any who say that those words are not in scripture, I agree. But neither are the words spoken by the “separate persons” crowd or those who would make God into a singular who transitioned his appearance over time. Each position is like a man describing a skyscraper from a singular vantage point. For each perspective, there is something different to see. While none are wrong, none are entirely correct because they can only see a part. From the vantage point of God as three, it is well established that the second ─ the Son ─ “became flesh.” But seeing that One was also seeing the Father, not just seeing someone with a resemblance to the Father. That means that the very three/one dichotomy makes even this straightforward question somewhat ambiguous. I would say that the record is that the Son became flesh, but that all of the Godhead dwelt in Him. It is a subject upon which the correct answers would seem to be equivocation due to reality of those answers being outside of the understanding and experience of man. Our understanding is limited by the bounds of physics, biology, chemistry, time, and even philosophy and imagination because God is outside those constraints. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

07-12-2008, 09:30 AM	#5
Timotheist Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Huntsville, AL Posts: 424	The "modalism" stuff I agree with these sentiments about the Triune God teachings posted thus far in this thread: 1) The 'orthodox' dogma is flawed, or incomplete 2) Lee's teachings are 'scriptural', but also flawed, or incomplete Now about "modalsim" I don't think John was seeing a "sevenfold, intensified, Spirit". Rather, these seven spirits can be found in non-canonical texts: they are the seven Arch-Angels. To me the Spirit that breathed life into Adam is the same Spirit that is breathed into new testament believers. The difference lies in the degree of God's "presence". The Holy Spirit is a stronger degree of God's presence than the first: 1) The Spirit gives life: the Holy Spirit gives holy life 2) The Spirit gives a human his life: the Holy Spirit gives eternal life. The Spirit did not have to "change" to become a life-giving Spirit. Rather the dose was increased, this made somehow possible by the redemption of the cross. But I find it interesting that Christ took his resurrected body with Him to heaven and was described as seated on the "right hand" of God. What happened? 1) Did Christ sit at the right hand before His incarnation? 2) Or did having a Body make Him a separate entity (or at least more separate than before)? I have spent some time looking into Jewish apocrypha trying to see any evidence of two thrones or a twofold Godhead of Father and Son. Recently I found this reference and will one day do some more research on it. It appears that there is a somewhat controversial passage (to Jews) in the Talmud that refers to a 'greater Yahweh' and a 'lesser Yahweh'. There is an introduction to this subject in Wikipedia at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metatron The description seems to paint a 'Co-existing but separable' God on the Throne. Check it out! Last edited by Timotheist; 07-12-2008 at 09:33 AM.

07-16-2008, 09:25 PM	#18
countmeworthy Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: in Spirit & in Truth Posts: 1,376	Additions to my post... Ok..... I'm rolling up my sleeves and jumping into this thread. First off...I don't know much about Lee's theology on the Triune God. I don't study modalism or other concepts of the Trinity. So I'm going to share with y'all what I've learned..what I've observed..& where I am in my relationship with God the Father, God the Son (JESUS) & God the Holy Spirit. 1) Raised as a Catholic. Taught there were 3 persons in One God..the Father, the Son & the Holy Ghost. End of Catholic knowledge/teaching. 2) Got saved in the LC. I think we were taught to believe in 3 persons in one God. So I was cool with that. I remember the 'mingling' teaching: Ice, liquid, water vapor. Father, Son & Spirit. God mingled in our spirit. So what??? I don't know that information enriched my relationship with El Shaddai-Adonai ( God Most High, O LORD!) But....in the LC, RARELY did we address the Father & the Holy Spirit, even though we believed and acknowledged them. If I'm not mistaken the Father was mainly acknowledged at the Lord's table to my recollection. The Holy Spirit was 'The LIFE GIVING SPIRIT living in our spirit.' We learned the Spirit was the Comforter as well as the Life Giving Spirit. My recollection was we spent most of our time calling on the Lord...Jesus. At prayer meetings it was LORD..this & LORD that...or LORD JESUS. We didn't pray 'IN the NAME of Jesus.' So to me, I was given DOCTRINE on the Triune God. A few years ago, I entered 'Christianity'...particularly, the Word-Faith Charasmatic bunch. I didn't know what to make of how they prayed: Father..in the Name of Jesus....Holy Spirit You are welcome here... and when I heard people addressing the Lord Jesus in prayer, I was like Awwwwwwwwe relieved. So.. as I fellowshipped, prayed and searched the Scriptures, I began to step out of the box. I began to address the Father, the Son & the Holy Spirit. For me, speaking to the Father & the Holy Spirit was 'new'. In my Praise/Worship moments, I tell the Father I love Him and I tell the Holy Spirit I love Him and of course, it goes without saying I tell the Lord Jesus I love Him. When I need insight & guidance, Counsel & Comfort, I talk to the Holy Spirit. He is the Voice of God. He counsels us, guides us, comforts us & speaks to us through our spirit. But I also talk to our Lord Jesus & ask for His Wisdom & to strengthen my inner man..my spirit. He is my Rock..my Fortress, my High Tower, my Deliverer, my Redeemer, My Saviour, My Lord, My King. The Person of the Godhead I know least of all is our heavenly Father. I'm trying to get to know HIM. He is El SHADDAI...Almighty GOD. He is ADONAI..the LORD. I'm well aware GOD is GOD. He is the Father, the Son & the HOLY Spirit. There is ONE GOD...who is in us, through us and for us all. In Christ dwells all the fullness of the Godhead. (Colossians 2:5-10) Jesus is NOT the Father. He is the Son, the Redeemer and LORD of All. No man can come to the Father but through Jesus, the Son. When Jesus was about to begin His Ministry, John the Baptist baptized Him in water and when He came out of the water, we read in Luke 4:1 Jesus being FULL of the HOLY GHOST returned to Jordan and was led by the SPIRIT into the wilderness. So even Jesus received the Holy Spirit. Later on in Luke 11:13 we read the Heavenly Father gives the Holy Spirit to them that ask Him. So I sometimes ask my Heavenly Dad to Fill me with His Holy Spirit when I need empowerment..and His Anointing. The Holy Spirit empowers us to speak with boldness..with authority. He is also the Anointing..The Holy Spirit is the Oil of Joy, the Oil of Gladness. He points us to JESUS. I remember when the Lord was begining to draw me to HIMSELF..to eternal SALVATION & Deliverence before I got saved. I was entrenched in the world but beginning to see it was nothing but a dead end to life. One night, as I layed in bed contemplating my miserable life, I heard a 'voice' telling me to call on JESUS. 'Call on JESUS' I kept hearing over & over again. But my MIND told me go straight to GOD bypassing Jesus. That VOICE I heard was the Holy Spirit speaking to me.....leading me to Jesus. I didn't get saved that night...but I could have. I got saved after praying to our LORD JESUS and surrendering my life to Him. Very soon after, I learned through the scriptures NO MAN CAN COME TO THE FATHER but through JESUS! (John 14:6) When we pray, addressing our Lord Jesus, we are praying through the Holy Spirit in us & reaching our Heavenly Father. Sooooo I don't know what WLee taught really. But in my journey to draw near & dear to our LORD..to our GOD I have come to develop a relationship with the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. And that my friends is MY story and I'm sticking to it! __________________ Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be *accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass,* and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) Last edited by countmeworthy; 07-17-2008 at 07:26 AM.

07-17-2008, 08:34 AM	#20
finallyprettyokay Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 129	Here is a little story that happened to me just the other day. I think it is a sweet little example of how much God loves us. Umm, I think that would be God the Father. Or maybe the Son. What happened was we were at a campground, with our cute cute little dog (a Shih Tzu, so cute), and this man came over to meet our little dog and talk to me. The man was in his 80's, I think. After a couple of minutes, he started to tell me about his little dog that had died just a few months ago. He was really sad. I listened, and indicated how sad it was. And I almost asked him what his dog's name was, but I had a shouting voice inside me say DO NOT ASK HIM. The voice was loud, clear, and definite. Don't do it. I stopped, a little confused --- why not ? Why would asking him his little dog's name be a bad thing? And then the voice said because, if you do, this man will fall apart. It just would have been too close, too much for him. We talked a few more minutes, and then he went on his way. So, I have thought about this a lot of times since then. I have thought that God (the Father) knows this man, and loves him. And He knows that if this man started to cry in front of me it would have been a horrible experience for him. And God wanted to spare him that pain. And God also knows me pretty darn well. So the Holy Spirit hollered at me. No still, small voice this time. Got my attention. So, I have thought about it a lot of times. Thought about how much God loves that man. I was witness to just a small little incident that any parent would do to protect their child. What does this have to do with this thread on the Trinity? Well, just that I feel like I saw that fullness of God in this thing that happened. I really have never tried very hard to understand the nuances of the doctrine we are discussing here -- it always seemed easy to me. God/One/Three -- But boy, oh boy, does He love us. I feel so privileged that I got to see God in action here, just taking care of a man I will probably never see again. But God will!!! Thanks, you guys. I like to be here, share with all of you, have you listen to me. It's nice. PS -- SpeakerCorner --- I love Charles Wesley. He writes the most mysterious songs of all. Deep stuff. But it always sort of kills me that I actually have a favorite hymm writer. I just don't seem to me like the kind of girl that would. But there you have it. Last edited by finallyprettyokay; 07-17-2008 at 08:37 AM. Reason: adding a PS

07-12-2008, 01:07 AM	#1
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Triune God, modalism, or are you heretic? Here I would like to discuss the teachings of LC about God. It is a hot topic and therefore needs to be addressed fairly. First of all, I would say that Witness Lee teaching on God differed from common teaching. I think all of us who came to LC found his teaching new - something we hardly heard in Christianity. Now, I am not saying at present that his teachings were not biblical - this we will figure out together. I am saying they were different. Okay, I do not have time right now for a large post; therefore I'll start with one point for starters. It would be a good beginning. Witness Lee differed in his teaching that Jesus Christ was the incarnation of the entire Triune God - the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Most common teaching is that Jesus was the incarnation of the Second Person of the Trinity - the Son. Now your thoughts, please...

07-14-2008, 01:51 AM	#8
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Ok YP0534, you do not like the topic. Maybe someone else is interested. What do you think of the incarnation of Christ?

07-16-2008, 06:05 AM	#10
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	It seems nobody is interested in this thread

07-16-2008, 12:22 PM	#16
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	I am interested in this thread but I think you can move along the time line a little further and ask if the Father and the Holy Spirit where incarnated does this mean they died on the cross? And if not what happened to them?

07-17-2008, 09:26 AM	#24
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	SC, I fully understand what you are saying. God is a mystery. On one hand, He is quite fully One, and on another He is Three. In the thread on the response of the GLA brothers to the Biblical scholars, I made the first comment. I am preparing a second comment on a different issue than the first. But in short, I question whether mixing the discussion of God’s unity/oneness with the discussion of the three personas He used to speak of His attributes is to muddy our understanding of God. God had a reason for introducing Himself as Father, Son and Spirit. Each has specific meaning. How fully independent these are, as in the presumption of separate human individuals is not clearly stated. Yet we clearly see evidence of their separateness in certain passages. On the other hand, our God is One. We devise various methods based on our observable universe to explain this mystery. The BARM likes the term “essence” to explain it. But it is almost clearly not the whole story. Lee liked the “one” aspects of God. He majored on them. Many others seem to major on the “three.” Neither is the whole story. So when we say that the Immortal dies, what do we mean? First, I will make one comment that someone else said to me a couple of years ago. I quoted lines from a song and someone essentially said “since when are song lyrics part of the canon of scripture.” Did Wesley use this particular set of words to indicate that he believed that God, in His entirety, died as we understand it? We understand death in two ways: 1) separation from God, and 2) the ceasing of our biological functions. Clearly the biological functions of Jesus ended. But even before that happened, He cried out concerning being forsaken. By the time of the physical death, Jesus was fully dead. His biological being had ceased to function and His whole being was “forsaken,” or separated from God. Yet Paul writes that God raised Jesus from the dead. So God in His entirety did not die. Between the death and resurrection, did God in heaven have the full understanding, feeling, sense of the situation of Jesus such that the reality of that separation was universally felt? Or alternately, was the forsaking of Jesus by God in heaven an act that caused separation of God which essentially affected both sides of the separation? This is where an inquiry in a truly logical and philosophical manner fails. Logic cannot bridge the chasm and philosophy must either accept the mystery as an assumed fact or it throws up its hands and says it must not be true. Don’t try to answer these. I have no idea if they are even valid questions. But thinking through the questions that the death of part of a “Trinity” raises gives a tremendous appreciation for what God is and did/does without ever getting an answer to those questions. God had a reason for revealing Himself in three personas. It is more than parlor tricks. But He is still One God. He spoke of the incarnation and life of Christ in terms of the Son, although there are backgrounds of the oneness throughout the gospels. But the incarnation was of the Son of God. That has meaning. It is part of the whole of God, not the whole. I do not find scripture that negates the idea that all of God was in Christ, but the actual scriptures on the subject speak of the Son of God. I will stick to the Son as what was incarnated. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

07-17-2008, 10:29 AM	#30
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	KSA, Ohio, SC, etc., Absolutely!! (What did he just say??) I said that every statement is absolutely part of our understanding. To our mortal minds, they may contradict at some level. But they are all important. What I did not clearly say is that since God went to the trouble of speaking in terms of the three personas/persons/essences/(whatevers), when someone comes along and essentially blurs it all together and says "the Father is the Son and the Son is the Spirit" the importance of what God is or was saying in terms of the "separateness" is obliterated. Is that heresy? Probably not. It surely is not modalism. But I believe it is a flaw in teaching that actually limits rather than enhances our understanding of God. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

07-17-2008, 10:36 AM	#32
SpeakersCorner Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 273	One thing about this whole discussion which I would like to address is the fallback position of, "It's a mystery." Often this is followed by, "... so let it go," if not in actual words then in attitude. Knowing that the trinity is a mystery in no way excuses not exploring it. We should study it and speak it and live it until we think, "I've got it! I finally understand the triune God." And then God will come along and pull back another layer of the onion and say, "Well, what about this?" And there we are, back in the mystery of it all. If you study physics, this is exactly what happens. The more Hawking et al probe into the mystery of just plain old matter, the more whole new worlds of the unknown open up. But thank God they probe. Each layer of understanding they achieve renders great benefit to mankind. And so it should be with the triune God mystery. We dig, probe, unravel, see a bit, proclaim way too much, but the body politic of Christians is benefited. As you, KSA, said to Countmeworthy, her view really is the fruit of Lee's teaching: we enjoy God. Not a bad side effect, I'd say. SC

07-17-2008, 10:38 AM	#34
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Amen, SC! I hope we will peel off many layers of onion here

07-18-2008, 05:35 PM	#40
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	So the Father didn't send his Son to die on the cross? He sent Himself? So all that talk by Jesus about being sent by the Father and doing the Father's will is really moot? It's just meaningless talk? Instead it should be: "I am God and I came down here for 33 years and I will die on the cross and resurrect myself and go back to heaven and send myself again at Pentecost." When I read the NT I see distinctions being made in the language of the writers and I have to think they were made for a meaningful reason. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-19-2008, 10:31 AM	#44
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	KSA I am going to review the Greek you refer to but my wider point is that if the Father sent himself then the discussion of the Son being sent seems moot. Why the distinction? Jesus did not say: "I am the Father and I sent myself." Why not? And I think a further question would have to be in relation to the Father why did Jesus die on the cross? What is the significance of it? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-20-2008, 12:45 AM	#45
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	I think that when Christ speaks of Himself being sent from the Father, the main stress here goes on His humanity. In His humanity He was God's servant who was sent to do God's will. "Sacrifice and offering You did not desire, but a body You have prepared for Me... behold, I have come - in the volume of the book it is written of Me - to do Your will, O God" (Heb. 10:5-7)

07-20-2008, 12:28 PM	#47
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	So he was sent by the Father. And in relation to the Father what significance is his death on the cross? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-20-2008, 12:50 PM	#48
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Can you clarify your question?

07-20-2008, 01:08 PM	#49
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	I really don't know how to make it more clear. But maybe I could ask it this way: what is the significance of the distinction between the Father and The Son in terms of the cross and the redemptive work of Christ? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-20-2008, 01:21 PM	#50
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	I would say that the Father is the one who planned our salvation, designed it, and the Son is the one who carried it out, fulfilled it. I have a question for you too: Jesus said that He did only what He saw the Father was doing. When Jesus went to the cross, did He go on His own, or He saw the Father doing it?

07-20-2008, 01:30 PM	#51
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	I would say that based on your theory as I understand it so far the Father not only planned and designed our salvation but also carried it out and fulfilled it thus making the distinction between the Father and the Son in this context moot. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-20-2008, 01:45 PM	#52
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Dear djohnson, I am not making theories so far. What I am doing is pointing out portions in God's Word that raise up questions that orthodox theology basically did not address. I do not know if the distinctions are moot or not. What I am concerned about is that these distinctions are taken to the extreme of separation between the Father, the Son and the Spirit. And it goes against orthodox teaching of pericherosis. Here is one story. I remember that not long after my salvation I read a book that claimed that we should pray to the Father in the name of the Son. The author boldly said that if I pray to the Son my prayers will not be answered. I took it seriously and began to pray to the Father in the name of the Son. But then I read another book which claimed that if we want to have an increase in the church we have to pray to the Holy Spirit. I was totally confused at that time. Eventually I decided when pray just to say "the Lord", and then They will decide for themselves to whom this prayer should go. Of course, it was ridiculous. It was tritheism, and many Christians unconsciously subscribe to this form of tritheism. When I came to LC, I was freed from this distortion, and in this way LC was a positive influence. There is only one God. And if out of ignorance or out of our inability to grasp the mystery of God, we sometimes blur the distinctions, I do not think that God will be offended that you ascribed to the one what usually is ascribed to the other. LC has many problems, but the accusation of modalism is plain ridiculous. Last edited by KSA; 07-21-2008 at 12:04 AM.

07-20-2008, 02:08 PM	#53
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	Language is symbolic and it creates word pictures in our minds. What word picture do you see in your mind when you hear or read the word pericherosis? __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-20-2008, 09:30 PM	#54
UntoHim Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World Join Date: Apr 2008 Posts: 3,824	http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o5lhdXeZqtk There is a Redeemer, Jesus, God’s own son, Precious lamb of God, Messiah, Holy one, Jesus my Redeemer, Name above all names, Precious lamb of God, Messiah, Oh, for sinners slain. Thank you oh my Father, For giving us your Son, And leaving your Spirit, til the work on earth is done. When I stand in glory, I will see His face, And there I'll serve my King forever, In that holy place. Thank you oh my Father, For giving us your Son, And leaving your Spirit, til the work on earth is done. There is a redeemer, Jesus, God’s own Son, Precious lamb of God, Messiah, Holy one, Thank you oh my Father, For giving us your Son, And leaving your Spirit, til the work on earth is done. And leaving your Spirit, till the work on earth is done. by Keith Green I think the late brother Green had it down just right.

07-21-2008, 05:08 AM	#58
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Perichoresis is coinherence or mutual indwelling. You can find it in John 17 where Jesus says that He is in the Father and the Father is in Him. So if the Father was always in Jesus, is it possible to separate the Father from what Jesus did. I mentioned earlier that the book "The Shack" was condemned by many as heretical, because the Father portrayed there with the scars on His hands. Many say that while Jesus ministered on the Earth, the Father was in the Heaven. This way they separate the Father and the Son. I believe that this way leads to a kind of tritheism. Last edited by KSA; 07-21-2008 at 07:42 AM.

07-21-2008, 08:44 AM	#60
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Seeing that red face and rolling eyes, I think you already caught perichoresis. You should visit a doctor. I know theological discussions can be boring and look not important. But when we label someone a heretic and a cultist, we gotta know our theology. (I like this one). My point is that Jesus was the Son sent by the Father. But the Father was in the Son, and the Son did only what He saw the Father was doing. Therefore, the Father was more than just an observer at the cross. Do you agree with this? I'd like to again draw our attention to orthodox teaching that God is one in nature, but not in number. Does anybody agree with this statement?

07-21-2008, 01:39 PM	#70
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	OBW I agree with the general thrust of your last post. The language of Scripture makes clear distinctions. An attempt consciously or otherwise to erase these distinctions ultimately results in making them pointless. If the Father is the Son and the Son is the Holy Spirit then these distinctions: Father, Son and Holy Spirit are just empty. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-21-2008, 05:00 PM	#73
djohnson(XLCmember) Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 318	OBW you bring up several good points and one in particular stands out to me: Lee's over emphasis on the oneness of God until the distinctions of the persons of the Trinity became blurred. And I think this obsession with oneness spilled out into his understanding of anthropology and ecclesiology as well i.e. ideally the distinctions of individuals and churches are lost in a nebulous whole. But the language of the Bible does not support this idea in theology, anthropology or ecclesiology. __________________ My greatest joy is knowing Jesus Christ!

07-22-2008, 11:58 AM	#75
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	KSA, I am not necessarily in disagreement with any finding that is clearly true, even if it is in opposition to what I have stated in my previous posts. I am trying to make a point concerning our certainty concerning what any particular verse does or does not mean relative to other verses due to the general silence of scripture as to what they actually mean. As for the commentary of John Gill, he could be correct. But he is also simply applying his opinion concerning the issue. I may like it (and actually do). But that does not make it right. Also, the fact that others before him may have written the same or similar things is not determinative. If frequency of the opinion in history is a factor, then we have significant problems with the doctrines of the RCC. I do not disagree that at some level God in his entirety is alway present in everything and in all of the Three of the Trinity. But in some sense there are Three and that distinction is valid. To wash it away where it is recorded is an error. It was one of Lee's more serious errors. I hope we are not ready to repeat it. __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

07-22-2008, 03:31 PM	#76
Old Rasputin Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Posts: 28	I agree Mike. When the Bible says something about God, we should listen carefully, no? Many verses show us clear distinctions between God the Father, Jesus Christ, and the Holy Spirit. I agree that Witness Lee often went overboard, trying to correct a perceived imbalance to the point of way overextending in the other direction. My only beef is that we should pay equal attention to those troublesome verses that seem to rock the boat, regardless of our attitude toward Lee. One of the reasons his teachings gained traction with me was that he was willing to discuss verses like 2 Corinthians 3:17 directly, without airbrushing them or explaining them away.

07-23-2008, 09:32 AM	#78
OBW Member Join Date: Apr 2008 Location: DFW area Posts: 4,384	KSA, I really do not have the time to spend to exhaust the possibilities on what the scripture might say on the two questions you pose. I understand your desire to get into the nitty-gritty of the words, even using some Greek in this last post. My observation is that getting close to the text, even to the individual words, has much value in understanding scripture. But it is also a place where meaning of the whole can be lost in the meanings of the details. Sort of a forest or trees problem. Both are relevant and must be considered. As to the questions you posed, I am able to answer in a manner that is, within our world, contradictory. I would begin by saying that there is one God. “Behold, the Lord your God is One God.” In this context, there can be only one will. Yet Jesus says “I do the will of the Father” (possibly not a perfect quote). This suggests a subservience of his will to the Father’s will. I do not have a problem with it being ultimate discovered (even if only upon the appearance of the New Jerusalem) that despite this statement by Jesus, there was truly only one will. But the statement made was that there was a subservience. Why? I don’t know. It may have been for the purpose of emphasizing to the disciples that they should also set their wills as subservient. But it does not say that anywhere. Of course, whether we are talking about the Greek terminology, or that of the Latins from which we eventually developed the “three persons” terminology, none of it is scripture, but our attempt to reconcile the difficulties of the scriptures that speak of both three and one. I am quite content to accept that there is One God with One Will because scripture says it, and also accept that Jesus and the Father had separate wills that, while by definition are identical, are also spoken of as one subservient to the other. If I need it to be only one way or the other, then I am requiring God to be according to the limits of my mind. Another way to say that is to say that I am creating God in my image. We have a doctrine of the Trinity because we cannot fully reconcile three being one God rather than an triumvirate. Unfortunately, I see this exercise as an attempt to reconcile the two sides into a coherent whole. Attempts at reconciliation of the three/one issue has tended to result in becoming lopsided toward one of two heresies — modalism or tritheism. I am not saying that there is not a lot to be learned from this and other inquiries. It might even be a good window into what was true and in error concerning Lee’s teachings. But if we insist that God must fit into man’s logic, we risk joining others who are already dancing on the wall around a well of heresy. When we are content to define away the distinctions of “persona” that the Bible uses, we are defining away something that it is telling us. I don’t buy into the idea that it was just terminology used to help those less educated people of that day understand but we are smarter. The scripture did not waste words. Don’t explain them away. It is more meaningful to point to the fact that Jesus and the Father really are one, yet somehow Jesus could die on the cross while the Father turned his back, but then resurrected him. It demonstrates a multifarious and vast God much more than one who is playing games with us because the very distinctions that He uses to speak of Himself are really not important. Last. I am not suggesting that this thread is useless. If that is what I thought, I would ignore it. But I see it as full of possibilities in discovering more of those un-reconcilable details about God that establish Him as more than man and outside our experience and knowledge. As one of the Psalms (maybe 139?) in effect says, there is knowledge that is beyond me and I cannot reach it because it is too high. Are we willing to accept that there are aspects of God that are beyond our knowledge, and therefore beyond our ability to reconcile and describe in human terms? I hope so. Otherwise, we are smarter than the God who wrote the scriptures for us to learn of Him. You can consider this whole post rhetorical. If you feel compelled to respond, that is OK. You do not have to. I am not saying that there is not value in the discussions. But if in our search for truth we find ourselves arguing away the very words from which we draw our authority, from where does our authority come? __________________ Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel

07-23-2008, 10:09 AM	#79
Thankful Jane Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Georgetown, Texas Posts: 295	I have not closely followed this thread, but I have a few thoughts as a result of reading Mike's post that I would like to share. These somewhat tie the doctrinal understanding together with the experiential understanding. One is that maybe we are wrong to characterize Christ's experience when he cried out "My God, my God why has thou forsaken me?" as being God turning His back on Christ or leaving Him. I think it is very possible that their fellowship, previously unbroken by anything, was broken in those hours that He bore the penalty of our sins as a man. Can't we understand this to be similar to the same way that we have Christ in us, but we can at times feel forsaken and even cry out like this. (I think that this is typically due to sin somewhere in our lives.) Another thought is that the danger in modalistic bent teachings, in which the distinctions among the three are minimized or reduced or removed or blended, is that this carries over to our relationship with God. Modalistic beliefs inevitably end up also removing the distinction between us and God. We can fall into the distinction-blurring and distinction-removing error of believing that we are "becoming" Him. This opens up a pandora's box of misunderstanding that will hurt our relational walk with Him, our proper understanding of personal and distinct accountability, etc. Another is concerning the will of Jesus being subservient to the will of God. The Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are perfectly of one will. When God became flesh in Christ He also had a human will. Could it not have been his human will that submitted to the will of God. He said that He intercedes for us as a sympathetic high priest tempted in all points like as we are. He set the example for us in His life of the way to walk with His human will one with the Father's which was constant fellowship with His Father. This is the same way we are to walk. That's it... carry on. Thankful Jane Last edited by Thankful Jane; 07-23-2008 at 01:05 PM. Reason: typo

07-28-2008, 03:05 AM	#85
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Welcome, Paul. Glad to see you here. As I stated in the beginning of this thread, Witness Lee's teaching differs from the commom teaching that only the Son was incarnated. At present I am not saying that Lee's teaching was not scriptural. It is what we are trying to establish here. Can you share your own thoughts based upon the discussion that had already transpired here. The quote you posted is relevant (I only removed last two paragraphs as they were beyond the subject of this thread). But I hope your participation will go beyond posting quotes. God bless you! Last edited by KSA; 07-28-2008 at 03:10 AM.

07-28-2008, 03:12 AM	#86
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Paul, maybe if you want to refer us to large chunks of quotes, you may just post a link to LSM online library, if it's possible.

07-28-2008, 04:19 AM	#88
KSA Member Join Date: Jul 2008 Location: Russia Posts: 173	Thank you, Paul. So if the Father is always in the Son, then when Christ was on the cross, the Father was also in Him, right? If so, how do you think, did Father have any participation in the sufferings of Jesus?