The Gospel Versus "God's Economy"

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

The difference between "became" and "processed" is that the term processed implies a process was done on you by an external agent..

ZNP

I’m not totally convinced of your construct but for the moment let’s explore it.

Therefore using the construct the scriptural example of an external agent working on a human to cause a change in the human would be incarnation.... apart from the womb a baby cannot develop. John 1:14

That is a process.

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP

I’m not totally convinced of your construct but for the moment let’s explore it.

Therefore using the construct the scriptural example of an external agent working on a human to cause a change in the human would be incarnation.... apart from the womb a baby cannot develop. John 1:14

That is a process.

Drake

Yes there are many processes that apply equally to us and Jesus. To say that Jesus experienced them all is fair. However, to say a baby "became" fully developed in the womb is also very understandable.

My point is simply that the apostles used the term "became" not "processed". There are other terms they didn't use which we use today, so that alone is not an error, but it does raise the very reasonable question -- why? What are you adding, or revealing with this term? Since the derivation is from the term "became" what was missing from the word became?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes there are many processes that apply equally to us and Jesus. To say that Jesus experienced them all is fair. However, to say a baby "became" fully developed in the womb is also very understandable.

My point is simply that the apostles used the term "became" not "processed". There are other terms they didn't use which we use today, so that alone is not an error, but it does raise the very reasonable question -- why? What are you adding, or revealing with this term? Since the derivation is from the term "became" what was missing from the word became?

ZNP

The term “processed” adds clarity that what is being referred to is related to what God does and not what God is. The Bible says that the Word became flesh and the last Adam became a life giving Spirit… Not God became flesh and God became a life giving Spirit even though Christ is God. Orthodoxy says that the two becomings of Christ are economical not an essential becoming in the Godhead therefore it is prudent to add clarification using our modern terminology to describe it. For me whenever I hear the term the processed Triune God I immediately think of the steps related to His actions upon and with His creation.....incarnation, human living, crucifixion, resurrection, ascension, enthronement, and becoming the Firstborn among many brothers. Meanwhile, I also am assured by explaining God in this way that I, and any of my hearers, am not referring to what the Godhead is in essence. The term “processed Triune God” distinguishes what we are talking about from what we are not talking about concerning God.

That does not mean that purposefully or through careless neglect some people wont still misunderstand but that does not relieve us of our responsibility to provide as much clarity as possible about what we mean

Drake

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Drake

The term “processed” adds clarity that what is being referred to is related to what God does and not what God is.

Another Biblical analogy is the transformation of precious stones. Transformation is another Biblical term, and does not carry the industrial and technological connotations that processed carries. Transformation does not change the intrinsic nature of the stone, the molecules are unchanged, rather the crystal structure is what is being changed. So there is a very clear distinction between the intrinsic and economical. In order for a stone to be transformed there are processes that are required and interestingly they are usually not what people associate with Diamonds which are not one of the precious stones in the NJ. So the term transformation includes the notion of various processes being applied, yet the focus is on the becoming of the stone the change that takes place.

However, when I hear the term "processed" the idea that the intrinsic nature of the food has not been changed is totally not there. On the contrary the act of processing food changes it intrinsically.

So then, if taught as you have done I don't see this term as an error, but simply a less expressive term than those used by the apostles.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Another Biblical analogy is the transformation of precious stones. Transformation is another Biblical term, and does not carry the industrial and technological connotations that processed carries. Transformation does not change the intrinsic nature of the stone, the molecules are unchanged, rather the crystal structure is what is being changed. So there is a very clear distinction between the intrinsic and economical. In order for a stone to be transformed there are processes that are required and interestingly they are usually not what people associate with Diamonds which are not one of the precious stones in the NJ. So the term transformation includes the notion of various processes being applied, yet the focus is on the becoming of the stone the change that takes place.

However, when I hear the term "processed" the idea that the intrinsic nature of the food has not been changed is totally not there. On the contrary the act of processing food changes it intrinsically.

So then, if taught as you have done I don't see this term as an error, but simply a less expressive term than those used by the apostles.

Precious stones are a good analogy for believers as the material for Gods building but I don’t see it’s application when distinguishing between the essential and economical Trinity.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

However, when I hear the term "processed" the idea that the intrinsic nature of the food has not been changed is totally not there. On the contrary the act of processing food changes it intrinsically.

With all the health concerns these days about the deleterious effects of daily consuming "processed" food, some of which was not known when Lee latched on to this word, one would think that Drake and his Blended Buddies would reconsider their choice of words.

Think how much healthier "the unprocessed Bread of Life" sounds.

Now that LSM has a permanent, full-time, professional Public Relations staff, they really should reconsider some of their former mannerisms, no longer suitable for human consumption. Or perhaps they still are convinced that "processed" foodstuffs are the best for their "moo cows."

[countmeworthy]

Originally Posted by Ohio

With all the health concerns these days about the deleterious effects of daily consuming "processed" food, some of which was not known when Lee latched on to this word, one would think that Drake and his Blended Buddies would reconsider their choice of words. Think how much healthier "the unprocessed Bread of Life" sounds.

More later but for now... WOW!! WOW!! WOW!! THUMBS UP OHIO!!!

[UntoHim]

"The following chapters are the messages given in the summer conference of 1964 at Los Angeles. The spoken form has been retained.
The author would urge all the readers to give their attention to the spiritual reality conveyed in these messages rather than to the language itself."
(emphasis mine)
The Economy Of God - MinistryBooks.Org

Maybe we can take a quick break from all the apologizing for the apologists, arguing about the arguments and giving analogies to explain analogies. The quote above comes from the forward of Witness Lee's seminal publication here in America - The Economy of God.

I think this quote speaks volumes about what kind of mindset, motivation and intentions Witness Lee came with when he landed upon our fair shores. Lee's admonition to his followers to "give their attention to the spiritual reality...rather than to the language itself" is as dangerous as it is absurd. I guess by the time that this book was published in 1968, Lee felt he had solidified his position as the One Minister with the One Ministry for The Age, The One Apostle and sole Oracle of God on earth - else how could he have mustered up the gall to actually tell people that he was able to "convey spiritual reality" merely by giving his highly questionable personal interpretations, uneducated guesses and make-it-up-as-you-go-along theology.

50 years after the publication of The Economy of God I think there is more than enough evidence that the teachings and concepts brought forth in this work have taken Lee's followers away from the genuine Gospel as related to us by the Lord Jesus Christ and the Scripture writing apostles, and have led them away from "the simplicity and purity" (2 Cor 11:3) which is in Christ, and which is fully and completely related to us in the Gospel.

Ok, back to the matter at hand:

Originally Posted by Trapped

I have an issue with the term "the processed God" or the phrase that "God was processed", not the facts that God did pass through what can be described as the "process" of incarnation, human living, death, resurrection, etc.

You're in good company there Trapped...the vast majority of recognized and reputable Christian teachers, scholars and apologists have big issues with this "processed God" nonsense. Although our friend Drake has made a gallant attempt at bailing out Witness Lee by referencing an actual, bonafied Christian scholar, Dr. R.C. Sproul, HERE, a careful reading of Sproul's article shows him giving the orthodox, commonly taught understanding of "The Difference between the Ontological and the Economic Trinity", and the differences between the late Dr. Sproul's orthodox teaching and Lee's "Processed Triune God" teaching are clear and stark. I would suggest anyone interested take the few minutes and read Sproul's article, then compare and contrast it with Lee's mishmash of unbiblical nonsense which Lee dubbed "The Processed Triune God".

To use analogies, just like to become a lawyer, you go through certain experiences (studying, passing the bar exam, etc), but no one has "processed" you to become a lawyer, or would ever say that. Even if you could do some linguistic gymnastics to show that grammatically it's technically okay to say someone is now a "processed lawyer", what benefit does it serve to say it that way and how does that help?

Not much to add to this gem of an observation. Yeah..."what benefit does it serve to say it that way and how does that help"? EXACTLY!
-

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

The term “processed” adds clarity that what is being referred to is related to what God does and not what God is.

Too bad there's that hymn "God IS processed this I know"
https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/343

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Too bad there's that hymn "God IS processed this I know"

Another one of those LC "One Hit Wonders" based on Lee's teachings.

God is processed, this I know,
For the Bible tells me so.
Incarnated as a man,
Lived and died and raised again.

Yes, God is processed,
Now He’s the Spirit
To constitute us
With the processed Triune God.

Incarnation: mingled makes,
Crucifixion: terminates,
Resurrection: germinates,
Life divine now animates.

Incarnated so He can
Have the living of a man.
Crucified and raised that He
Could impart His life to me.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Too bad there's that hymn "God IS processed this I know"


https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/ns/343

Good song... accurate, simple ...

If you prefer the original words to the tune sing those instead.

Sing something..... could preserve you.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Drake

Sing something..... could preserve you.

Oh I'm preserved all right....unfortunately I'm lifeless from decades of being submerged in the preserving formaldehyde of "the ministry".

Speaking of preserving, (and this is a deviation from the thread topic so my post is welcome to be moved elsewhere) there is a portion in the Life-Study of Matthew about the preserving aspect of our being the salt of the earth. I definitely do agree there is a preserving aspect of our being the salt of the earth. But as I read it I thought it was a great simple example of how wrong thoughts are so seamlessly interwoven throughout right ones in Lee's speaking and I think is why some struggle so much with what to throw out. You literally have to work through every word.

Green text is what I generally agree with. Red text is what I don't agree with.

"When we say that we are salt, it means that we exercise our influence over the earth created by God to keep it in its original condition. The earth, which was created by God, has become fallen. In a sense, it has become rotten and corrupted. Salt kills the germs and eliminates this rottenness. Any medical doctor can tell you that salt kills germs, eliminates rottenness, and preserves things in their original condition. By nature, salt is an element that kills the germs of corruption and eliminates them. Thus, through its killing and preserving function, salt brings the earth back to its original condition or keeps it in its original condition. Hence, the function of salt is to preserve what God has created. The entire earth is becoming more and more rotten. Therefore, we must exercise our influence over this corrupted earth. To the corrupted earth, the people of the kingdom of the heavens are the element that keeps the earth from being fully corrupted."

The thought that "salt brings the earth back to its original condition" or is "to keep it's original condition" is just not true about salt. Salt preserves something where it is at. It does not have a restorative effect or bring anything back to anything. I would agree that salt is "to keep it's CURRENT condition". But when he said the earth has become rotten, which is true, salt cannot be retroactive to bring things back to it's original condition.

Same concept with "eliminates rottenness". I would agree with "prevents rottenness" or "eliminates the germs that cause rottenness", but "eliminates rottenness" implies the presence of rot already. If you have meat with rottenness already, the salt will not "eliminate" that rottenness.....it will just preserve what is still good in its current condition.

This is by no means earth shattering or faith-changing but it kind of exemplifies why I always had so much trouble with reading the ministry.....inaccuracy is interwoven so much throughout. And where there is a little inaccuracy or deviation from accuracy, that can be built upon over time and you end up far off.

If you were reading a textbook and every other or third or fourth phrase wasn't true, what would you do? Throw that thing out and get a better and more accurate one! What use is it if it is not accurate?

[leastofthese]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This is by no means earth shattering or faith-changing but it kind of exemplifies why I always had so much trouble with reading the ministry.....inaccuracy is interwoven so much throughout. And where there is a little inaccuracy or deviation from accuracy, that can be built upon over time and you end up far off.

If you were reading a textbook and every other or third or fourth phrase wasn't true, what would you do? Throw that thing out and get a better and more accurate one! What use is it if it is not accurate?

Very good points here Trapped. One additional thought, to take one step further. What if every “third or fourth” phrase wasn’t true AND the author claimed that it was a divinely inspired recovery of God’s word and THE ministry in which God is most pleased? You throw the book out and RUN - you’ve found yourself at the feet of a false prophet.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Green text is what I generally agree with. Red text is what I don't agree with. If you were reading a textbook and every other or third or fourth phrase wasn't true, what would you do? Throw that thing out and get a better and more accurate one! What use is it if it is not accurate?

Okay, Trapped.

Who are you trying to convince? Forum participants who need no convincing or yourself?

My advice is that you move on.... to a place you can give the rest of your life in service to God.

Drake

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

This ... exemplifies why I always had so much trouble with reading the ministry.....inaccuracy is interwoven so much throughout. And where there is a little inaccuracy or deviation from accuracy, that can be built upon over time and you end up far off.

If you were reading a textbook and every other or third or fourth phrase wasn't true, what would you do? Throw that thing out and get a better and more accurate one! What use is it if it is not accurate?

If Witness Lee had allowed himself to be one voice among many, his ministry would have had some value. We all "see in part", as Paul wrote. (1 Cor 13:9-12)

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Good song... accurate, simple ...

If you prefer the original words to the tune sing those instead.

Sing something..... could preserve you.

Drake

If LSM leaders were truly "constituted with the Processed Triune God," wouldn't they behave more like the apostles in the scriptures, rather than like the Judaizers of old -- lying, suing, back-stabbing, peddling the word of God?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

Yes there are many processes that apply equally to us and Jesus. To say that Jesus experienced them all is fair. However, to say a baby "became" fully developed in the womb is also very understandable.
My point is simply that the apostles used the term "became" not "processed". There are other terms they didn't use which we use today, so that alone is not an error, but it does raise the very reasonable question -- why? What are you adding, or revealing with this term? Since the derivation is from the term "became" what was missing from the word became?

This highlights the point many have with the phrase "processed God." Why is Drake so compelled to endorse Lee's additions to the Biblical record? It quickly becomes obvious that Lee did not do this to further the truth, but to be different -- to set himself apart, at least in the eyes of his beholders.

Lee also used his specialized (and highly questionable) terminology to condemn all others, "poor, poor, Christianity does not see that God is processed." Who would build their ministry on such a basis? Neither Luther, nor Darby, nor Nee did this.

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Lee also used his specialized (and highly questionable) terminology to condemn all others, "poor, poor, Christianity does not see that God is processed." Who would build their ministry on such a basis? Neither Luther, nor Darby, nor Nee did this.

"The all inclusive processed triune God" is certainly the biggest example of this that I can remember.

[aron]

Originally Posted by ZNPaaneah

"The all inclusive processed triune God" is certainly the biggest example of this that I can remember.

Consummated! ZNP! You forgot the "and consummated" part!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Drake

ZNP

I’m not totally convinced of your construct but for the moment let’s explore it.

Therefore using the construct the scriptural example of an external agent working on a human to cause a change in the human would be incarnation.... apart from the womb a baby cannot develop. John 1:14

That is a process.

Drake

Hey, you're right. I never looked at that 'construct' like that before ; we're all processed. Maybe that's why the LC is like vacuum packaging ; a bubble to live in, that keeps us away from contaminants in the world?'

I make light. But now bro Drake I understand why you asked Trapped : the concept or the term?

And now you're working on the term. Are you thinking that if we can confirm a 'process,' we can then confirm Lee's processed God?

[ZNPaaneah]

Originally Posted by awareness

Hey, you're right. I never looked at that 'construct' like that before ; we're all processed. Maybe that's why the LC is like vacuum packaging ; a bubble to live in, that keeps us away from contaminants in the world?

I hate to encourage him, but that was funny.