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

[Drake]

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]

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.

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]

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]

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?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

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

Trapped linked them:

"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""

We are talking about the "smushed" part of his allegation.

The Bible is clear from the scriptures provided that the Word, the Son, is God... no smushing going on. However, Trapped was right to link the two thoughts....If there is no clarity on the Word as God becoming flesh then the "four-in-one God" will be misunderstood. This thread demonstrates that. I am here to provide my view on why the "four-in-one God" is not only sound doctrine but has a solid foundation in scripture.

Drake

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

The Bible is clear from the scriptures provided that the Word, the Son, is God... no smushing going on. However, Trapped was right to link the two thoughts....If there is no clarity on the Word as God becoming flesh then the "four-in-one God" will be misunderstood. This thread demonstrates that. I am here to provide my view on why the "four-in-one God" is not only sound doctrine but has a solid foundation in scripture.

Seriously? Have you also forgotten that Mary is the Mother of God?

The Father is God, the Son is God, the Spirit is God.

Lee's error was to teach the Son is the Father, and the Son is the Spirit.

Then Lee furthered his system of error by saying the redeemed become God also.

[Trapped]

This post can go to the "Is God a Trinity?" thread if it better belongs there. I could easily post it in both locations. This four-in-one thread was the catalyst for my creating the Trinity thread anyway.

=================

As far as I can tell, what is going on here is directly related to the Trinity teaching. And this is why the Trinity teaching is so important to get right, or to correctly get that it is wrong (I'm still on the fence, but leaning one way that is probably obvious from what I've written on the other Trinity thread).

To call Jesus "God" without distinction of what "God" He is leads to unavoidable logical conclusions like Mary is the mother of God. But she wasn't. She was the human mother of the Son of God, who is Himself "god" but not "THE GOD".

The Trinity teaching conflates what "God" each person of the Trinity is into saying they are somehow the same God, and produces aberrant results like the one Drake is trying to lead us to.

To try to explain what I mean, look at Psalm 82. (It's not too long).

https://biblehub.com/bsb/psalms/82.htm#

Psalm 82:1 says:
God presides in the divine assembly; He renders judgment among the gods:

This is clearly a divine gathering. Not a human gathering. And it's not a meeting of the Trinity because the Trinity says each person is co-equal and in this passage God is clearly lighting into the other gods and is angry with them. A member of the Trinity, being God, does not fit with the accusations leveled at them rest of the chapter either. This is a divine gathering of gods with our one true God (and by this I do not mean the Triune God....I mean the Father, El, the one true God) over it all.

Verse one contains a reference to "God" (what we all think of when we say "God") and it contains a reference to "the gods".

If you look at the Hebrew for verse 1 (here: https://biblehub.com/text/psalms/82-1.htm), it is the exact same Hebrew word for both.

elohim

So when we see "elohim" it does not always have to mean the Most High God.

There was a divine assembly with a plurality of gods. elohim. There is a hierarchy, however, and God - our God - presided in this divine assembly. Our God is over all the gods in the spiritual realm.

This is why the Bible calls Him the "Most High", or "the one true". And "besides me there is no other like me". The God who is jealous over us is surrounded by non-pareil gods in the immaterial spiritual realm. This is why, in the OT, God was always trying to get His people to turn back from the other gods to Him, the one true God, the preeminent.

The letters G-O-D do not always have to mean the one true unique Creator God.

Jesus can therefore be "God" but NOT BE THE SAME GOD AS THE FATHER. As far as I can tell, this makes the Trinity construct, as well as pretty much all of the confusing, illogical aspects of it, fall apart. Jesus can be elohim, but the Father is the most high elohim.....God above all gods.

And as far as I can tell this leaves nothing left for Lee to create a four-in-one doctrine from either.

[HERn]

Originally Posted by Drake

Trapped linked them:

"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""

We are talking about the "smushed" part of his allegation.

The Bible is clear from the scriptures provided that the Word, the Son, is God... no smushing going on. However, Trapped was right to link the two thoughts....If there is no clarity on the Word as God becoming flesh then the "four-in-one God" will be misunderstood. This thread demonstrates that. I am here to provide my view on why the "four-in-one God" is not only sound doctrine but has a solid foundation in scripture.

Drake

Why is the “four-in-one God” teaching important?

[Drake]

Originally Posted by HERn

Why is the “four-in-one God” teaching important?

Eph 4:1-3, 12-16

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

The Bible is clear from the scriptures provided that the Word, the Son, is God... no smushing going on. However, Trapped was right to link the two thoughts....If there is no clarity on the Word as God becoming flesh then the "four-in-one God" will be misunderstood. This thread demonstrates that. I am here to provide my view on why the "four-in-one God" is not only sound doctrine but has a solid foundation in scripture.

Drake

Drake,

We're not interested in your "view" or your "interpretation" of scripture. Give us the scripture and we will decide for ourselves how sound and solid Witness Lee's teaching is. On the face, the "four in one God" teaching is heresy.

Nell