Lee's Trinity

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What is clear is that our friend Drake is using the false dichotomy of the supposed "essential/economical" aspects of God as a not-so-veiled cover for Witness Lee's unscriptural, modalistic processed Triune God theology. Of course Igzy, as well as many of us former residents of Lee-Lee land, will never fall for this shell game....fool me once.....

There is a very good reason why one would be hard pressed to find any noted evangelical/orthodox scholar who subscribes to this essential/economical notion as a foundational basis in understanding the nature, character or even actions of God the way that Witness Lee does. The reasons for this are quite simple - it just ain't there in the holy Scriptures. Oh, if ones twists, tweaks and massages the black and white letters and words, well then anything is possible...including that the three Persons of the Godhead become each other
-

As Evangelical has clearly shown the essential or ontological Trinity and the economical Trinity are theological terms and concepts. They were not invented by Brother Lee. I believe I first read economical in Bunyan's works.

But let's not get hung up on terms. What term do you prefer to describe how divinity entered humanity in incarnation and how humanity entered divinity in ascension? If not "economical" then what term do you offer to describe our God's great doings?

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

As Evangelical has clearly shown the essential or ontological Trinity and the economical Trinity are theological terms and concepts. They were not invented by Brother Lee. I believe I first read economical in Bunyan's works.

I never said they were invented by Witness Lee, only that he misused and misapplied them, as Lee was wont to do with many advanced theological terms and concepts. It doesn't take a theological scholar to quickly understand that Lee mixed and confused the two terms, and also misapplied them in a really weak attempt to affirm and justify his "processed Triune God" teachings, which have been tagged as at least slightly modalistic by more than one biblical teacher or scholar.

Of course Lee also taught a relatively orthodox/biblical version of the Trinity, sometimes in the very same page or paragraph! The problem is that he clearly "confounds the persons", thus scrambling the eggs as it were, then he quickly tries to unscramble them by popping out some orthodox/biblical speaking. Lee's attempts were, of course, in vain. Once you teach that "the Son and the Father are really not two separate persons", you have already confounded the persons...you've scrambled the eggs.

But let's not get hung up on terms. What term do you prefer to describe how divinity entered humanity in incarnation and how humanity entered divinity in ascension? If not "economical" then what term do you offer to describe our God's great doings?

Firstly, any of us are probably just as susceptible to scramble the eggs as Witness Lee, me included. But since you asked, I prefer to just stick with what is giving to us in the Bible - "And the Word became flesh". Amen! Thank you Father, the Word became flesh and even dwelt among us, full of grace and truth! I guess I'm just a simpleton, yokel who's satisfied with the basics.

As far as the rest of your concerns, I would point you to a genuine, bonafide, world renowned theologian, R.C. Sproul.

What’s the Difference between the Ontological and the Economic Trinity?

Do you know the meaning of the word Trinity? In all likelihood, most of those reading this are familiar with this word and its meaning in theology. But what if I were to ask you to distinguish between the “ontological Trinity” and the “economic Trinity”? If I said, “Please describe for me the difference between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity,” could you do it? The distinction is very important.

Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, or as some theologians term it, the “immanent Trinity,” we are referring to the Trinity in itself, without regard to God’s works of creation and redemption. In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity (Deut. 6:4). When we speak of the economic Trinity, on the other hand, we are dealing with the activity of God and the roles of the three persons with regard to creation and redemption.

In terms of the ontological Trinity, the three persons are distinguished by what the Westminster Larger Catechism calls “their personal properties” (WLC 9). It then goes on to define these personal properties: “It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity” (WLC 10). With regard to the economic Trinity, we distinguish among the three persons of the Godhead in terms of their roles in creation and redemption. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world for our redemption. It is the Son who acquires our redemption for us. It is the Spirit who applies that redemption to us. We do not have three gods. We have one God in three persons, and the three persons are distinguished in the economy of redemption in terms of what They do.

In orthodox Christianity, we say that the Son is equal to the Father in power, in glory, and in being. This discussion rests heavily on John 1:1, where we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This verse indicates that the Father and the Word (the Son) are different and are one. In one sense, the Son and the Father are identical. In another sense, They are distinguished. From all eternity, within the ontological Trinity, the Father begets the Son, and the Son is begotten of the Father. From all eternity, God also freely decrees the salvation of yet to be created human beings in what theologians refer to as the “covenant of redemption.” This covenant of redemption among the Persons of the Trinity is the eternal foundation for the work of the three Persons in the history of redemption. From all eternity the Father agrees to send the Son, and the Son is willingly sent. The Son doesn’t send the Father; the Father sends the Son. So even though the Father and the Son are equal in power, glory, and being, and even though there is no eternal subordination within the ontological Trinity, nevertheless there is a subordination of the Son to the Father in the economy of redemption.

That is what Jesus said in John 5:19–23. He declared: “I don’t do anything on My own. I do what the Father tells Me to do. I do what the Father sent Me to do. I watch the Father, and I do what the Father does. The Father is preeminent. The Father is the One to whom I am obedient and subordinate.” He even affirmed that He could not do anything of Himself, only what He saw the Father do. Out of His love for the Son, the Father showed Him all the things that He Himself did. Then Jesus stated that the Father would show Him even greater things, so they should expect His works to become greater. In this context, Jesus specifically mentioned the raising of the dead.

This excerpt is taken from R.C. Sproul’s commentary on John.
-

[Evangelical]

The Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

If is meant to imply merely moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should Christ's words have caused such fierce reaction?:

John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

[OBW]

Thanks Unto.

Just two paragraphs before the part you quoted comes this paragraph

The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one God. First Peter 1:2 tells us that the Father is God; Hebrews 1:8 tells us that the Son is God; and Acts 5:3-4 tells us that the Spirit is God. If you read the Bible in a superficial way, you may believe that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three separate persons. But if you read even only the Gospel of John carefully, getting into the depth of the truth, you will see that the Son came in the Father’s name, He worked out the Father’s will, He worked the Father’s work with the Father and in the Father’s name, He spoke the Father’s word, and He sought the Father’s glory. If you touch the depth in the verses that cover these points, you will realize that the Son and the Father are one. You cannot separate them

Here is more of the typical Lee fantasizing. Let me paraphrase:

"Peter tells us the Father is God. Hebrews tells the Son is God. And Acts tells us the Spirit is God. . . . You will realize that the Son and the Father are one."

Genius. There is One God. How did we miss this???

Continuing: "You cannot separate them."

Really? While they are "one" they are also two. And they separated themselves very nicely, thank you. Jesus prays to the Father. He does the will of the Father. They look pretty separated to me.

Continuing with the beginning of the next paragraph. . . "Likewise, the Spirit is not separated from the Son. . . ."

A lot of talk after the three verses at the beginning of the first paragraph (that don't support the "they are one" theory) without a single verse. Just Lee's conjecture, or more like opinion, about what it must be despite nothing that supports his opinion. The only support found is that the Father, Son and Spirit are all God.

A few paragraphs later, he turns to John 4:24 "God is spirit." But he quotes it as "God is Spirit." John 4:24 does not comment on the whole of God being "the Spirit." Rather it comments on the nature of God as spirit. The fact of the nature does not cause all three to become one of them simply because that one has personified that word as his name. The Father is spirit, not The Spirit. The Son is spirit, but not The Spirit. The Spirit is spirit, and is also The Spirit (redundant?).

This is just a little of the scriptural mishandling performed by Lee in this one chapter of this one book. And it speaks volumes about the theological, logical, and spiritual incompetence of the man. He was never worthy of having any people following him to learn his understanding of the Bible. He didn't understand it. Or he was corrupt enough to bankrupt what he might know by turning out the pig food that this book provides. (And almost every other one I have taken the time to review)

The funny thing is that I do not have to go looking for places he goes wrong. Someone points to a quote or reference, or I simply start reading at a place and it is just there. I can't have just happened to have found the few really bad parts by bum luck. It has to be that full of garbage for the refuse of it to be found right where I start every time.

And every time that someone points to a particular place, I find it right there. Not pages later. Or somewhere else after exhausting the general vicinity where I started.

In this case, it is chapter 14 of The Divine Dispensing of the Divine Trinity. Messages given over several months in 1983. A good part of them in Irving where I lived at the time. I probably was there for at least some of them.

And yes, I was a willing participant at the time. But I was awakened from the stupor. Got some true "spiritual oxygen" to clear my from the garlic fog that I has lost in while there.

But Lee says it just like Charlie Brown commiserating about losing at baseball ("How can we lose when we're so sincere?"). In this case, the statement is "So they just have to be one, unable to be separated."

Really? On what basis? How is it that the God that made everything can't do it in a different way than you imagine?

Just a chapter earlier, Lee asks "God were only God, how could He enter into us?" How? Because he is God. That he is instead Three does not deny him any capabilities or attributes. Just changes how he operates. God does not have to be Triune, or Trinity. But he is. Why do we accept that Lee's near incredulity at the idea that they could be separated has any bearing on the subject? Where is the evidence? He constantly tells that X means Y, but never identifies how that is so.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

False statements and fortune cookie proof-texting.

Yes, they are one essence.

Wrong. They are not one entity.

And we talk about humans being "one." They are not simply each other, so this verse cannot be simply understood as meaning that the Father and the Son are simply the same being (entity). That is a claim that the words do not support. And so much of the account in the scripture clearly contradicts.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

False statements and fortune cookie proof-texting.

Yes, they are one essence.

Wrong. They are not one entity.

And we talk about humans being "one." They are not simply each other, so this verse cannot be simply understood as meaning that the Father and the Son are simply the same being (entity). That is a claim that the words do not support. And so much of the account in the scripture clearly contradicts.

OBW,

It appears in your quest to disagree with Witness Lee as much as possible you are departing from orthodoxy. Of course, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one entity, one being.

Re-read UntoHim's R.C. Sproul clip.

" In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. "

Drake

[Drake]

OBW)" God does not have to be Triune, or Trinity. But he is"

True, but in the context of coming into us, or dispensing Himself into man, man must be a compatible receptacle. God must be triune and man must be tripartite. I think it was Igzy that said something along this line with different terms earlier in this thread.

Drake

[UntoHim]

You got us all wrong (again) Drake. Mike can speak for himself, but I can tell you that we are not on a "quest to disagree with Witness Lee as much as possible", rather we have found our way back to the orthodox, evangelical, historic Christian faith, which, when compared and contrasted to the teachings and practices of the Local Church, established by Lee himself, one finds many of them at odds with said Christian faith.

In short, it is Witness Lee and his followers who have decidedly departed from the historic Christian faith and orthodox teachings. Lee calls them "recovered truth", but they have recovered nothing but many of the ancient heresies of the first few centuries of the church. Turns out, thee is nothing new under the sun.
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You got us all wrong (again) Drake. Mike can speak for himself, but I can tell you that we are not on a "quest to disagree with Witness Lee as much as possible", rather we have found our way back to the orthodox, evangelical, historic Christian faith, which, when compared and contrasted to the teachings and practices of the Local Church, established by Lee himself, one finds many of them at odds with said Christian faith.

In short, it is Witness Lee and his followers who have decidedly departed from the historic Christian faith and orthodox teachings. Lee calls them "recovered truth", but they have recovered nothing but many of the ancient heresies of the first few centuries of the church. Turns out, thee is nothing new under the sun.
-

The orthodox, evangelical, and historic Christian faith does not teach that God is more than one being!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW,

It appears in your quest to disagree with Witness Lee as much as possible you are departing from orthodoxy. Of course, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one entity, one being.

Re-read UntoHim's R.C. Sproul clip.

" In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. "

Drake

Yet they are also three. Sproul (or "Pulpit") notwithstanding, the very use of the term "being," entity," or "person" as being exclusive domain of One or Three is the problem. You presume that the fact that he said this means that he thinks that they are simply one being and that the "three" side cannot be described in the same way or with the same term.

Now I admit that using the same term for the One and the Three is problematic (at least to us finite beings). But that does not mean that I, you, Sproul, or Lee has the wherewithal to say where the "being" is and where it is not.

I know that you don't like that creed. But it made more sense of the Trinity than the arguments over where "being" should be attributed. They are Three, not to be morphed into one. And they are One, not to be separated into Three. Both are true. Is there anywhere that the term "being" or "entity" should exclusively apply? We really don't know. But people like Lee demand that they have the answer and it is mostly opposite of what everyone else says.

You complain about us seeming to be going after Lee. Well it is more likely that the one who bucks the history of theology for his own personal ideas that he can't even substantiate with a scripture is the one who is wrong in the debate. You can't argue with that. Lee really doesn't provide any support for his "they are just one" theology. He just says it is true. Whole chapters of whole books doing just like that.

Then grossly misrepresenting the little scripture he really uses. Like "God is Spirit." It doesn't say that.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yet they are also three. Sproul (or "Pulpit") notwithstanding, the very use of the term "being," entity," or "person" as being exclusive domain of One or Three is the problem. You presume that the fact that he said this means that he thinks that they are simply one being and that the "three" side cannot be described in the same way or with the same term.

Now I admit that using the same term for the One and the Three is problematic (at least to us finite beings). But that does not mean that I, you, Sproul, or Lee has the wherewithal to say where the "being" is and where it is not.

I know that you don't like that creed. But it made more sense of the Trinity than the arguments over where "being" should be attributed. They are Three, not to be morphed into one. And they are One, not to be separated into Three. Both are true. Is there anywhere that the term "being" or "entity" should exclusively apply? We really don't know. But people like Lee demand that they have the answer and it is mostly opposite of what everyone else says.
.

OBW,

Tritheism is the belief that cosmic divinity is composed of three powerful entities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritheism

Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

False statements and fortune cookie proof-texting.

Yes, they are one essence.

Wrong. They are not one entity.

And we talk about humans being "one." They are not simply each other, so this verse cannot be simply understood as meaning that the Father and the Son are simply the same being (entity). That is a claim that the words do not support. And so much of the account in the scripture clearly contradicts.

I actually quoted from Pulpit Commentary, almost word for word to see if someone would "take the bait", and you did!

Pulpit Commentary on John 10:30 says:
that the Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity. If be merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment?

The Pulpit Commentary is a homiletic commentary on the Bible created during the nineteenth century under the direction of Rev. Joseph S. Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones. It consists of 23 volumes with 22,000 pages and 95,000 entries, and was written over a 30 year period with 100 contributors. Rev. Joseph S. Exell M.A. served as the editor of Clerical World, The Homiletical Quarterly and the Monthly Interpreter. Exell was also the editor for several other large commentary sets like The Men of the Bible, The Preacher's Homiletic Library and The Biblical Illustrator. Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones was the Vicar and Rural Dean of St. Pancras, London and the principal of Gloucester Theological College.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulpit_Commentary

It just proves that even if Drake or I post from reliable theological resources the "orthodox" position, you will still disagree with it possibly because you have departed from the orthodox position yourself, or do not understand what you are talking about.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It just proves that even if Drake or I post from reliable theological resources the "orthodox" position, you will still disagree with it possibly because you have departed from the orthodox position yourself, or do not understand what you are talking about.

My dear brother you can quote from reliable theological resources 'till all the mooing cows come home, but if what Witness Lee taught doesn't come even close to what these sources say (and in many cases Lee teaches quite the opposite) then even when all your mooing cows do come home they won't have any legs to stand on. There was a very good reason Witness Lee attempted to steer his followers away from most theological teachers and scholars - he didn't want any of his followers to discover the blatant departure he had taken from "the faith once delivered to the saints". His story was that he had assimilated anything worth while and discarded the "bones and feathers". Some of you dear saints are still choking on them bones and feathers to this day...except that you don't call them bones and feathers, you call them "high peak truths".
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My dear brother you can quote from reliable theological resources 'till all the mooing cows come home, but if what Witness Lee taught doesn't come even close to what these sources say (and in many cases Lee teaches quite the opposite) then even when all your mooing cows do come home they won't have any legs to stand on. There was a very good reason Witness Lee attempted to steer his followers away from most theological teachers and scholars - he didn't want any of his followers to discover the blatant departure he had taken from "the faith once delivered to the saints". His story was that he had assimilated anything worth while and discarded the "bones and feathers". Some of you dear saints are still choking on them bones and feathers to this day...except that you don't call them bones and feathers, you call them "high peak truths".
-

I call Lee's strategy a bunch of bull.

Sorry Unto but you left the gate open and I got hoof and mouth. Must have something to do with my location.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My dear brother you can quote from reliable theological resources 'till all the mooing cows come home, but if what Witness Lee taught doesn't come even close to what these sources say (and in many cases Lee teaches quite the opposite) then even when all your mooing cows do come home they won't have any legs to stand on. There was a very good reason Witness Lee attempted to steer his followers away from most theological teachers and scholars - he didn't want any of his followers to discover the blatant departure he had taken from "the faith once delivered to the saints". His story was that he had assimilated anything worth while and discarded the "bones and feathers". Some of you dear saints are still choking on them bones and feathers to this day...except that you don't call them bones and feathers, you call them "high peak truths".
-

Why are members of this forum rejecting the stock standard theological resources I am posting. If they truly are orthodox I should expect a hearty "amen". But they are even disagree with these. I am quoting them word for word. You seem to reject both Lee and "orthodox" theological resources at the same time. To me it seems you are somewhere still on the journey between Lee and "orthodoxy". I believe "the faith once delivered to the saints" does not include the Catholic or Orthodox dogmas of the 5th Century AD.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I actually quoted from Pulpit Commentary, almost word for word to see if someone would "take the bait", and you did!

Quoting someone does not make it worthy of being a rock to stand on. You and others have been quoting Lee for years as if it is the third testament. And the sloppiness with which many speak when it comes to the Trinity is sometimes atrocious given the tenuous nature of the whole definition/doctrine anyway.

So I am not impressed that you managed to quote somebody that appeared to agree with you. (At least appeared that way when a single sentence is ripped from the pages.)

The problem is that neither Lee, nor Sproul, nor the writers of the Pulpit Commentary are scripture and their statements, even if carefully construed, constitute actual evidence. They can only be understood as support for something that is first found in the Bible. And you didn't start with the Bible, but with their statement. So you really don't have scriptural evidence of anything. You have a context-less statement that might not even be saying what you are claiming.

And if the "entity" that is being referenced is "God," then I would agree. If the entity is the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, then I doubt that he would be saying that and would argue that where you are taking his statement (solely with respect to the completeness of their unity, not the reality of their separateness) is not what he was saying.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Quoting someone does not make it worthy of being a rock to stand on. You and others have been quoting Lee for years as if it is the third testament. And the sloppiness with which many speak when it comes to the Trinity is sometimes atrocious given the tenuous nature of the whole definition/doctrine anyway.

So I am not impressed that you managed to quote somebody that appeared to agree with you. (At least appeared that way when a single sentence is ripped from the pages.)

The problem is that neither Lee, nor Sproul, nor the writers of the Pulpit Commentary are scripture and their statements, even if carefully construed, constitute actual evidence. They can only be understood as support for something that is first found in the Bible. And you didn't start with the Bible, but with their statement. So you really don't have scriptural evidence of anything. You have a context-less statement that might not even be saying what you are claiming.

And if the "entity" that is being referenced is "God," then I would agree. If the entity is the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, then I doubt that he would be saying that and would argue that where you are taking his statement (solely with respect to the completeness of their unity, not the reality of their separateness) is not what he was saying.

What do you mean "didn't start with the Bible, but with their statement"?

I posted both the bible verse and the commentary. You were fooled into thinking it was from Lee when it was not, it was from Pulpit commentary. This proves that you don't know the difference.

My post stated clearly that it was one entity in Personality. The Father's and the Son's Personality is the same.

I first found the verse, John 10:30 "I and the Father are one". I then read the commentary. I posted both.

The irony is you reject Lee and say he is not a theologian. Yet when I do post from stock standard theological resources you reject these as well.

Most of the time on this forum I don't even have to quote Lee to refute what I say. I just quote gotquestions or CARM or the commentaries from Biblehub.

Like I said you are just arguing against anything that Drake or I post.