The Gospel Versus "God's Economy"

[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

I advise anyone leaving Lee's local church recovery system to go see a shrink. There's been advances in treatment for PTSD since I left.

The LSM-directed local church is, for many, an immersive experience, a self-contained thought-world and equally comprehensive ministry-guided "church life" that swallows up one's very being.

For many, there were (and I suppose still are) communal living arrangements (brother's and sister's houses, and "sponsor families" [hosts]), meetings every day of the week, both official and informal, service groups, and eventually a "full time training" with subsequent "service to the ministry", i.e. a supervised campus recruiting job somewhere, and a ministry-approved spouse.

To walk away from that path is daunting. What follows?

I know this thread is on "God's economy" and "Processed God" teachings, but these teachings are presented in the context of an immersive thought-world and life. One must first break the strongholds, and then rebuild. A lot to take on.

"Just move on", says Drake. "Go serve the Lord somewhere". After one has been systematically and thoroughly programmed to reflexively avoid any thoughts that didn't come from the ministry? Just move on?

[Trapped]

Lee has stated "God's being triune is for His economy."

He also says "By studying the Trinity in Genesis, we can conclude that God’s trinity is for His economy, which is to dispense Himself into man so that man may enjoy Him and become His expression. In addition, according to the revelation in Genesis, there are two crucial points concerning the Trinity. First, the three of the Trinity are distinct but not separate. Second, in His essence God is one, but in His economy, His dispensing, God is three. God is essentially one and economically three."

I don't currently disagree with the essential/economical concept as part of the vast explanation of how God is both three and one.

But in reading what I quoted above, I don't agree that "God's being triune is FOR His economy." That makes it seem like His economy existed before He did, and He was triune because of that economy, and because of the future need in His economy for Him to be triune. God's being is just His being.....He is not a certain way FOR anything in the created world. It's the other way around: His economy is what it is because He is triune. If God wasn't triune, His economy would look different. But He isn't triune FOR His economy.

God is simply triune, that is who He is, and He is triune whether or not His economy as we know it existed or didn't exist in His heart. To think otherwise implies there was a purpose behind God being who He is......which means there is something outside of/larger than/before God, which doesn't work.

Just had to throw that out there after reading that.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Lee has stated "God's being triune is for His economy."

He also says "By studying the Trinity in Genesis, we can conclude that God’s trinity is for His economy, which is to dispense Himself into man so that man may enjoy Him and become His expression. In addition, according to the revelation in Genesis, there are two crucial points concerning the Trinity. First, the three of the Trinity are distinct but not separate. Second, in His essence God is one, but in His economy, His dispensing, God is three. God is essentially one and economically three."

I don't currently disagree with the essential/economical concept as part of the vast explanation of how God is both three and one.

But in reading what I quoted above, I don't agree that "God's being triune is FOR His economy." That makes it seem like His economy existed before He did, and He was triune because of that economy, and because of the future need in His economy for Him to be triune. God's being is just His being.....He is not a certain way FOR anything in the created world. It's the other way around: His economy is what it is because He is triune. If God wasn't triune, His economy would look different. But He isn't triune FOR His economy.

God is simply triune, that is who He is, and He is triune whether or not His economy as we know it existed or didn't exist in His heart. To think otherwise implies there was a purpose behind God being who He is......which means there is something outside of/larger than/before God, which doesn't work.

Just had to throw that out there after reading that.

I agree.

Lee's comment, "God's being triune is for His economy," goes along with his statements about man being the "center of the universe." As if the "Only Begotten" followed the creation and fall of man.

It would do the Body of Christ a great service if the Blended "Theologians" at LSM would begin to correct some of these errant and wildly speculative teachings of their founder. Instead they often decide to double down on stupid. We have seen some of the posters on this forum from time to time also do the same.

Reminds me of the histories of other so-called "MOTA's," James Taylor of the Plymouth Brethren and Count Nicholas von Zinzendorf of the Moravians. Professor Nigel Tomes did a great study on these two Christian leaders and their successors . . .

AFTER THE FOUNDING FATHERS—Historical Case Studies: Zinzendorf & James Taylor

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Ohio

It would do the Body of Christ a great service if the Blended "Theologians" at LSM would begin to correct some of these errant and wildly speculative teachings of their founder. Instead they often decide to double down on stupid. We have seen some of the posters on this forum from time to time also do the same.

For sure.....a "we were wrong" moment of their own would do wonders.

[Weighingin]

My first questions about "God being triune for His economy" would be
1. Was He something else and then became triune for His economy?
2. Has He been triune for eternity and this is who He is whether or not He had an economy for His creature?
Gen 1:26 "Let us make man in our image..." has God expressing Himself as plural even before man's creation. The footnote indicates that the three of the Godhead held a council about creating man.
In my own experience, I often struggle to find the right phrases/words to express my thought. So that still leaves me wondering what he meant by that
or was it just part of his overall explanation?

[JJ]

Originally Posted by Trapped

Lee has stated "God's being triune is for His economy."

He also says "By studying the Trinity in Genesis, we can conclude that God’s trinity is for His economy, which is to dispense Himself into man so that man may enjoy Him and become His expression. In addition, according to the revelation in Genesis, there are two crucial points concerning the Trinity. First, the three of the Trinity are distinct but not separate. Second, in His essence God is one, but in His economy, His dispensing, God is three. God is essentially one and economically three."

I don't currently disagree with the essential/economical concept as part of the vast explanation of how God is both three and one.

But in reading what I quoted above, I don't agree that "God's being triune is FOR His economy." That makes it seem like His economy existed before He did, and He was triune because of that economy, and because of the future need in His economy for Him to be triune. God's being is just His being.....He is not a certain way FOR anything in the created world. It's the other way around: His economy is what it is because He is triune. If God wasn't triune, His economy would look different. But He isn't triune FOR His economy.

God is simply triune, that is who He is, and He is triune whether or not His economy as we know it existed or didn't exist in His heart. To think otherwise implies there was a purpose behind God being who He is......which means there is something outside of/larger than/before God, which doesn't work.

Just had to throw that out there after reading that.

God is that He is. Trying to figure out why He is Father, Son, and Spirit may be a fools errand. Maybe our time is spent better just appreciating that He is, interacting with Him as all three and one, thanking and praising Him. And, telling others how wonderful He is.

I’ve said and explained this elsewhere on these boards: the word economy is a poor English choice for the Greek word that literally means “house law”. Try using the word stewardship instead in the verses Lee often cited that he translated economy and see if it doesn’t change your thinking about these matters.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by JJ

God is that He is. Trying to figure out why He is Father, Son, and Spirit may be a fools errand. Maybe our time is spent better just appreciating that He is, interacting with Him as all three and one, thanking and praising Him. And, telling others how wonderful He is.

I’ve said and explained this elsewhere on these boards: the word economy is a poor English choice for the Greek word that literally means “house law”. Try using the word stewardship instead in the verses Lee often cited that he translated economy and see if it doesn’t change your thinking about these matters.

I can't quite tell if you agree or disagree, but my issue in my particular post isn't with the word "economy" or any translation options of the word. My issue is Lee saying that "God's being triune is FOR His economy" (or house law, or stewardship). My issue is with the word "for".

For example, I am fine with the statement "God's being triune can be seen in His economy." But to say "God's being triune is FOR His economy" is something different. It implies that His economy came before His existence. It implies his Trinity serves, or is subservient to, or is something produced because of, His economy.

I prefer stewardship or house law also, but in the blinders of what I was dealing with in this one post, it doesn't change my issue with how Lee said what he said.

Lee seemed to be giving a reason why God is triune. Like you said, God is that He is, and I agree, and there is no figuring out why He is anything.