Lee's Trinity

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

IgzyI am willing to accept RC Sproul's definition . How is that modalism?

You give lip service to the definition then gut it by declaring that they really are just each other, therefore not three. Just one. You won't say it, but it is effectively to say that they are one using masks to be the Father, Son, and Spirit at the appropriate times.

Not really three. You say you believe in three. But not really. You declare it for the camera, then deny it with the bulk of your rhetoric.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

You give lip service to the definition then gut it by declaring that they really are just each other, therefore not three. Just one. You won't say it, but it is effectively to say that they are one using masks to be the Father, Son, and Spirit at the appropriate times.

Not really three. You say you believe in three. But not really. You declare it for the camera, then deny it with the bulk of your rhetoric.

God is Triune. Three One. Really three. Really one. Not three masks. Not three modes.

The three (Father, Son, Spirit) are not three entities nor three beings. Period. They are Three Persons if by Persons you do not mean three beings. Earlier you said they were three beings or entities. They are not.

There is One God. Three Persons but One God.

If you agree with that then you and I agree on the definition of the Trinity. And if you hold that view you also agree with RC Sproul. And as distasteful as you will find this, you also will be in agreement with Witness Lee's view.

And that my colleague is where you will stumble and prefer to drive into the ditch of tritheism in a vain attempt to distance yourself from that "little sect".

Drake

[Drake]

OBw)" There is God and the one he sent."

Whoa, hold on here, OBW.

Did you say "he"?

A singular personal pronoun referring to God?

Watch it, that be modalistic speak.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

God is Triune. Three One. Really three. Really one. Not three masks. Not three modes.

The three (Father, Son, Spirit) are not three entities nor three beings. Period. They are Three Persons if by Persons you do not mean three beings. Earlier you said they were three beings or entities. They are not.

There is One God. Three Persons but One God.

If you agree with that then you and I agree on the definition of the Trinity. And if you hold that view you also agree with RC Sproul. And as distasteful as you will find this, you also will be in agreement with Witness Lee's view.

And that my colleague is where you will stumble and prefer to drive into the ditch of tritheism in a vain attempt to distance yourself from that "little sect".

Drake

But the Bible never says God is three, neither does it even use the word three in the same sentence as God.

(Except for the KJV from the TR in I John 5 which all scholars readily dismiss.)

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Ohio

But the Bible never says God is three, neither does it even use the word three in the same sentence as God.

Good point, and just some more evidence that the three persons of the Godhead are indeed ONE in substance and nature. One Being in three Persons. Glory, glory to the Father! Glory, glory to the Son! Glory, glory to the Spirit! Glory to the three in One!

I would point out that although the Word never uses the word "three", it does use the word "We"...and from none other than our Lord Jesus himself: "Jesus answered him, “If anyone loves me, he will keep my word, and my Father will love him, and we will come to him and make our home with him."(John 14:23)

There is a very good reason why EVERY translation of this passage, from the most literal to the loosest paraphrase, use the pronoun "We" in translating this Greek word ἔρχομαι erchomai (most render "we will come"), and the reason is the plain context of where the word appears dictates that it be translated "We will come". Regarding this common phrase, BlueLetterBible.Com has the following entry: "to come from one place to another, and used both of persons arriving and of those returning"

Then, when taken in the general context of the 14th Chapter of John, I think most serious students of the New Testament would strongly infer that the "we" actually includes the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit.
-

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

God is Triune. Three One. Really three. Really one. Not three masks. Not three modes.

The three (Father, Son, Spirit) are not three entities nor three beings. Period. They are Three Persons if by Persons you do not mean three beings. Earlier you said they were three beings or entities. They are not.

There is One God. Three Persons but One God.

If you agree with that then you and I agree on the definition of the Trinity. And if you hold that view you also agree with RC Sproul. And as distasteful as you will find this, you also will be in agreement with Witness Lee's view.

And that my colleague is where you will stumble and prefer to drive into the ditch of tritheism in a vain attempt to distance yourself from that "little sect".

I would say that we mostly agree.

Our disagreement comes at your inability to accept that three persons (beings) can be a single God rather than three gods. And you trot out the "tritheism" charge when I say that.

But the Trinitarian belief is that tritheism is the belief in three separate gods while the Trinitarian belief is that there are Three Persons that constitute one God. And in saying that, it is specific that:

• The Father is not the Son nor the Spirit, but is God.
• The Son is not the Father nor the Spirit, but is God.
• The Spirit is not the Father nor the Son, but is God.
• These three constitute a single God that is joined through the substance of their being, not the uniting into one "person." That substance is referred to as "essence." (this is my paraphrase)

You consistently have stated that believing that there are three distinct persons is tritheism. You may think that this is true, but in doing so, you accept a different definition of tritheism because the Trinitarian doctrine specifically believes in three distinct persons who are One God. Not One God who is three "almost persons."

The problem with your definition is that it is different from what has been provided since at least the 3rd century (roughly the time of the first use of the term "Trinity" to refer to the Three nature of the One God). Therefore you may like your definition better, but just because you like it better and declare it to be correct, you can't just tell everyone else that they are wrong because you don't like their definition. If there is something wrong with the definitions that already exist, you need to provide convincing evidence that our definition is wrong. Otherwise you need to go home and rethink it all.

[Drake]

OBW)"You consistently have stated that believing that there are three distinct persons is tritheism"

Clarification on my view.

No, I said three beings or entities is Tritheism. I accept the term Persons providing beings is not meant when used.

Thanks
Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

No, I said three beings or entities is Tritheism. I accept the term Persons providing beings is not meant when used.

Then we have a difference in definition. As I understand it (based on looking it up earlier), Tritheism is the belief in three gods. The mere presence of three separate beings who are One God does not constitute three gods, therefore does not constitute tritheism.

As I understand the term, you would appear to be misrepresenting the meaning of tritheism. Why?

Maybe for the purpose of driving wedges between the brethren? To give support to the shoddy faux theology of the man you so diligently follow?

Care to justify your definition of tritheism?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

Then we have a difference in definition. As I understand it (based on looking it up earlier), Tritheism is the belief in three gods. The mere presence of three separate beings who are One God does not constitute three gods, therefore does not constitute tritheism.

As I understand the term, you would appear to be misrepresenting the meaning of tritheism. Why?

Maybe for the purpose of driving wedges between the brethren? To give support to the shoddy faux theology of the man you so diligently follow?

Care to justify your definition of tritheism?

There are no boogeymen out to trip you up.

Okay, lets work on definitions, perhaps that will help us.

God is One Being. That is what He is.

God is Father, Son, and Spirit. That is who He is.

Tritheism conflates the two. It sees Father, Son, and Spirit and concludes there are three beings. That is an error and a heresy.

You also conflate the two and that us why I keep coming back to this.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

God is One Being. That is what He is.

That is not necessarily so. He is one God. But that is something outside of human existence. When we say "One God in Three Persons" we are declaring that there is one God, but three beings or persons.

As Igzy has stated, to say there are persons but not beings is to effectively say that there are persons, but there are not persons.

It is the error of both being and not being and is, by definition, a false statement.

The rest of your post is predicated on the presumption that persons are not beings. We differ in a serious way on this. So you can howl at the moon about it. There is no analysis of English that arrives at that conclusion.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW)"You consistently have stated that believing that there are three distinct persons is tritheism"

Clarification on my view.

No, I said three beings or entities is Tritheism. I accept the term Persons providing beings is not meant when used.

Thanks
Drake

So a person is neither an entity nor a being? So what are you?

Don't mean to make fun of you, but you have to admit it's pretty silly stuff. What you are saying is a person is what one of the Trinity is, and a being or entity is what the whole Trinity is. But that's just a tautology.

And it doesn't account for the fact that you and I are both all three: beings, entities and persons. But since the Son is neither a being or an entity, does that make us more than him in some way?