Is the Processed, Four-in-One God a sound doctrine?

Bible-believer · 09-04-2021, 08:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

Hopefully I can squeeze this post in before the thread is closed. I had intended to circle back to your sentence that "It's like in this process is Jesus, the Triune God-man becoming the Spirit" but hadn't gotten the chance to yet.

My first thought is about the first excerpt you included from Lee's Our Unchanging, Processed God. Notice that Lee deftly says that God is "unchanging" and also "processed".

This doesn't work. To process something by definition means it undergoes a change. Lee gets around it by saying God is unchanging in His essence but processed in His economy......but.......huh? To me, this is like saying I'm faithfully married when my eyes are open, but commit adultery when my eyes are closed, and yet try to claim that I'm faithfully married the whole time. It's an irreconcilable contradiction.

God is God. He just is. Inside of time, outside of time, in His essence, in His economy. He is unchanging. He cannot be unchanging in His essence while be changing in His economy and still be said to be the God who does not change.

So that's my first thought about Lee's assertion that God became Jesus who became the life-giving Spirit. The Bible is false if Lee's assertion is true. "Become" means change. But God is unchanging.

Many people inside and out of the church have tried to take Lee or the ministry to task about that teaching because it's clearly modalistic, but Lee would just speak out of the other side of his mouth and claim the that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are ever co-existing and eternal even though he also taught they successively became each other.....both of which can't be true.......and that is not the sign of someone speaking the truth of God.

My other thought was about last part of that excerpt about becoming the life-giving Spirit. This has been discussed in detail very well in several other threads somewhere on the forum, but we have to look at 1 Corinthians 15 to see how badly Lee bungled this teaching.

Of course, 1 Corinthians 15:45 is, So it is written: “The first man Adam became a living being” ; the last Adam, a life-giving spirit.

Witness Lee tried to say that there is only one Spirit that gives life - the Holy Spirit, and so the life-giving spirit in this verse could only be the Holy Spirit.

If I remember right, He called everyone else heretical for even thinking that the life-giving Spirit could be something other than the Holy Spirit. Two Spirits! How absurd! he said.

But as you said earlier in this thread, a text without context is a pretext (as well as oftentimes a prooftext), and the context of 1 Corinthians 15 is about what kind of resurrected body we will have. The chapter very clearly contrasts our current natural bodies with our future resurrected spiritual bodies. Since Jesus was the first one to resurrect with a spiritual body, and Jesus is the one through whom we have eternal life, and Jesus is the life, He is therefore a "life-giving spirit" (not the Holy Spirit).

It's really that simple.

God is Spirit. Jesus resurrected with a spiritual body. We have the Holy Spirit. There's a lot of spiritual things going on in the unseen, spiritual realm. We can speak of a spirit and not be bound to mean the Holy Spirit every time.

So God did not become Jesus who became the life-giving Spirit. Lee was wrong here too. Shocker.

Hopefully that helps address some of the confusion you initially posted about.

Trapped

Thank you. It's clear.

Regarding my question, I consulted a brother. He said that Lee had his own set of expositions, but that set of expositions often lacked biblical facts and logic and were often crude conclusions and self-righteous opinions. Lee had created many "terms" and many "adjectives" to illustrate his point of view. That repetitive and lengthy vocabulary often makes people fall into his frame before they have a chance to figure it out.
Therefore, the best way is to get out of Lee's frame and hold on to the Bible itself. I agree with him.

As you said, "Unchanged" and "Processed" are incompatible.

As simple as that.

Drake · 09-07-2021, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Thank you. It's clear.

As you said, "Unchanged" and "Processed" are incompatible.

As simple as that.

Bible-believer, is it that simple according to the scriptures?

John 1: 14a: "And the Word became flesh..."

If "Unchanged" and "Processed" are incompatible then how do you interpret this verse?

Thanks,
Drake

Nell · 09-07-2021, 05:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Bible-believer, is it that simple according to the scriptures?

John 1: 14a: "And the Word became flesh..."

If "Unchanged" and "Processed" are incompatible then how do you interpret this verse?

Thanks,
Drake

Drake,

It’s your verse. What is your interpretation? You go first.

Nell

Drake · 09-07-2021, 07:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nell

Drake,

It’s your verse. What is your interpretation? You go first.

Nell

Sure. Nell.

John 1: 14a: "And the Word became flesh..."

The unchanging eternal Word, who is God, and the Creator (1:1-3) became a man in time with flesh (a sinless human life, human nature, human body, human soul, and human spirit).

Through this process, for the very first time, a Wonderful and Unique Person, with two natures (divine and human) began in time over 2100 years ago.. Jesus, our Lord and Savior.

Drake

Trapped · 09-07-2021, 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Sure. Nell.

John 1: 14a: "And the Word became flesh..."

The unchanging eternal Word, who is God, and the Creator (1:1-3)....

This is a misleadingly incomplete description.

John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

Colossians 1:16
For in Him all things were created, things in heaven and on earth, visible and invisible, whether thrones or dominions or rulers or authorities. All things were created through Him and for Him.

Hebrews 1:1-2
1 On many past occasions and in many different ways, God spoke to our fathers through the prophets.
2 But in these last days He has spoken to us by His Son, whom He appointed heir of all things, and through whom He made the universe.

1 Corinthians 8:6
yet for us there is but one God, the Father, from whom all things came and for whom we exist. And there is but one Lord, Jesus Christ, through whom all things came and through whom we exist.

You speak of the Son of God and say "the Word, who is God, and is the Creator". But that's not accurate.

The Bible says, repeatedly, God created everything in, through, and for the Son of God.

All things came FROM God the Father, and we exist FOR God the Father. But all things came THROUGH Jesus, and we exist THROUGH Jesus.

By collapsing distinctions you bring in confusion.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

...became a man in time with flesh (a sinless human life, human nature, human body, human soul, and human spirit).

But John 1 says the Word was WITH God and the Word was God. So God was with God? And both of those times "God" has to mean the same thing? This makes no sense.

Notice that the Word being "with" God is stated twice.

John 1:1-3
1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
2 He was with God in the beginning.
3 Through Him all things were made, and without Him nothing was made that has been made.

This is why I am bound to question what the right translation for "the Word was God" means, or if "God" there is different from the "God" the Word was with. Jesus Himself said He had glory WITH the Father before anything was created (John 17:5). Jesus didn't say He WAS God in glory, but that He was WITH God in glory. He was WITH God, like John 1 says.

To me, this is why there has to be distinction between what "God" Jesus is and what "God" the Father God is. Otherwise we get "God became a man", when the Biblical record is actually:

John 3:16
For God so loved the world that He gave His only begotten Son, that whoever believes in Him should not perish but have everlasting life.

God didn't become a man. The Son of God became a man. The Word, the SON of God, became flesh.

Not God. God is the one who sent His Son. God is the one who sacrificed His Son for us. God did not send Himself. God gave His only begotten Son.

Lee's ministry put God and the Son of God in a vice grip together and smushed them to the point where the necessary distinctions between the two were obliterated. And in so doing, Lee merrily skipped down the deviated path towards his self-created "four in one God".

Drake · 09-08-2021, 12:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Trapped

This is why I am bound to question what the right translation for "the Word was God" means, or if "God" there is different from the "God" the Word was with.....

To me, this is why there has to be distinction between what "God" Jesus is and what "God" the Father God is.....

God didn't become a man. The Son of God became a man. The Word, the SON of God, became flesh.

Not God. God is the one who sent His Son. God is the one who sacrificed His Son for us. God did not send Himself. God gave His only begotten Son.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Trapped,

John 1:1 shows distinction but not difference. The distinction is that two are mentioned -God and the Word. However, there is not a difference because the Word and God are God. This phrase "and the Word was God" states the proper Godhead of the Second of the Trinity.

Verse 14 also reveals that the Word was the Son.

John 1:14
"And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father) full of grace and reality"

This also confirms v1 that the Word, the Second in the Divine Trinity, is the Son, as does v18.

John 1:18
"No one has ever seen God, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him"

There is an abundance of additional scripture that also shows clearly that the Son is equal to the Father in the Godhead and is fully God and really man. Here's one that Bible-believer just posted:

"1Tim.3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

This confirms the meaning of John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh"... The Word, the Son, was with God, and was God, the second of the Trinity, and became a man (flesh).

Drake

Nell · 09-08-2021, 01:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.

Trapped,

John 1:1 shows distinction but not difference. The distinction is that two are mentioned -God and the Word. However, there is not a difference because the Word and God are God. This phrase "and the Word was God" states the proper Godhead of the Second of the Trinity.

Verse 14 also reveals that the Word was the Son.

John 1:14
"And the Word became flesh and tabernacled among us (and we beheld His glory, glory as of the only Begotten from the Father) full of grace and reality"

This also confirms v1 that the Word is the Son, the Second in the Divine Trinity, as does v18.

John 1:18
"No one has ever seen God, the only begotten Son, who is in the bosom of the Father, He has declared Him"

There is an abundance of additional scripture that also shows clearly that the Son is equal to the Father and is fully God and really man. Here's one that Bible-believer just posted:

"1Tim.3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory."

This confirms the meaning of John 1:14 "and the Word became flesh"... The Word, the Son, was with God, and was God, the second of the Trinity, and became a man (flesh).

Drake

How does this address this topic:
Re: Is the Processed, Four-in-One God a sound doctrine?

HERn · 09-07-2021, 07:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Bible-believer, is it that simple according to the scriptures?

John 1: 14a: "And the Word became flesh..."

If "Unchanged" and "Processed" are incompatible then how do you interpret this verse?

Thanks,
Drake

Hey Drake, what would Witness Lee say about the “four-in-one” statement of God’s nature if he was on earth today? That is the topic of this sub-forum, right?

HERn · 09-07-2021, 08:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Bible-believer, is it that simple according to the scriptures?

John 1: 14a: "And the Word became flesh..."

If "Unchanged" and "Processed" are incompatible then how do you interpret this verse?

Thanks,
Drake

Hey Drake, for the sake of argument let’s assume that the Word becoming flesh means that God can change and was processed. Now, please take us to the destination you would like to arrive. And please tell us why this is important to you? Just wondering.

Ohio · 09-08-2021, 04:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by HERn

Hey Drake, for the sake of argument let’s assume that the Word becoming flesh means that God can change and was processed. Now, please take us to the destination you would like to arrive. And please tell us why this is important to you? Just wondering.

So he can take us to that verse we used to sing,

"God is processed, this we know,
For the Bible tells us so."

Sons to Glory! · 09-08-2021, 07:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ohio

So he can take us to that verse we used to sing,

"God is processed, this we know,
For the Bible tells us so."

I don't remember singing that in any locality I was in. Not saying it wasn't sung or that I didn't sing it . . . I just don't remember it. (I have a waiver in such remembrances as I'm over 65

)

Gosh, but isn't hindsight so clear about these things?

So many things we wouldn't tolerate now, that we just swallowed and ignored before!

Bible-believer · 09-07-2021, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Bible-believer, is it that simple according to the scriptures?

John 1: 14a: "And the Word became flesh..."

If "Unchanged" and "Processed" are incompatible then how do you interpret this verse?

Thanks,
Drake

Hi, Drake,
Here are some verses sharing with you.

John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
1Tim.3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Drake · 09-08-2021, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bible-believer

Hi, Drake,
Here are some verses sharing with you.

John 1:1, In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
1 John 5:7 For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
1Tim.3:16 And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness: God was manifest in the flesh, justified in the Spirit, seen of angels, preached unto the Gentiles, believed on in the world, received up into glory.

Hi Bible-believer,

Great verses... thanks for sharing. How do you apply these verses to the "Unchanged" and "Processed" statement you made? And do you agree or disagree with my interpretation (#102) on John 1:14? If not, what Bible verses contradict my interpretation and how?

Thanks
Drake

Bible-believer · 09-08-2021, 05:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drake

Hi Bible-believer,

Great verses... thanks for sharing. How do you apply these verses to the "Unchanged" and "Processed" statement you made? And do you agree or disagree with my interpretation (#102) on John 1:14? If not, what Bible verses contradict my interpretation and how?

Thanks
Drake

May I ask you a question?
Is Jehovah Jesus?