Became or Not Became - Interpreting 1Cor 15:45

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Why then the need for biblical and systematic theology?

You did well with the answer to your own question.

But for me, the thing I consider is that while the average Joe/Jane in the Christian community does not need to know and understand so much that is borderline esoteric theology, having some around who do helps in providing the kinds of talks we need when we become like the Corinthians, or the Philippians, etc., and get sideways in our orthopraxy — in our practice. And when I read through the things that Paul talked about (as well as Peter, John, James, etc.) it is interesting that while there are truly spiritual things that we need to be engaged in, so much of it — whether within the community of faith or out living in the world — is practical. But sometimes we get messed up in our practice, whether it is how we practice having meetings, how we treat each other in general, and how we interact with the world around us.

Someone needs to come along and say "don't forget that you are crucified with Christ," or "set your mind on the Spirit and you will fulfill the righteous commandment of God," or "submit yourselves one to another," or "love your neighbor as much as you love yourself." (And don't just hate yourself so you can get away with hating them too.) And they need to have a reason, not just an opinion. Some good systematic theology helps them know the reason. I don't need to understand the meaning of substitutionary atonement . . . I need to believe in Christ and obtain it without the words ever being said. But sometimes, if I get to thinking that there is no way that God could love me and forgive me, I need someone who knows what a bunch of those things mean, and knows how to bring it down to my level. Those are the leaders who are servants to all. And worthy of their pay (and then some).

[awareness]

Originally Posted by OBW

Someone needs to come along and say "don't forget that you are crucified with Christ," or "set your mind on the Spirit and you will fulfill the righteous commandment of God," or "submit yourselves one to another," or "love your neighbor as much as you love yourself."

This is true. But I think it goes all astray in an authoritarian environ, like the LSM LRC.

From what I know you wouldn't do or say such things to Witness Lee. And according to Nee's teaching on following authority you don't question the leader enough to know if he need's a wake-up call, or swift kick in the rear.

In such an authoritarian environ there's not a lot of freedom to be giving advice to leaders.

Lee, for example, needed someone to come along and balance him on 1Cor 15:45. Cuz he went too far on that verse ... squeezing it into his grand -- only Witness Lee had the true word from God -- systematized theological authoritative contrivances.

But who could question his authority? Those that did weren't around for long.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by OBW

You did well with the answer to your own question.

OOOWWWWCCCCHHHH!. Man oh man did I have that one comin!
(and no, Harold you can't pile on...even though I know you want to)

Of course I don't really see biblical/systematic theology as esoteric theology...but then again....maybe one man's theology is another's torture chamber? I do get your point that biblical/systematic theology may be something more of a corrective/medicinal thing than something for the regular diet of Christians. And you're probably right.

So, can we still proceed on here? I would love to hear all the differing views of 1 Corinthians 15:45. Sister Faith has registered, and I'm assuming she is ready and loaded for bare to present and defend Witness Lee's interpretation.

Ok, Let's do this!

[awareness]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

OOOWWWWCCCCHHHH!. Man oh man did I have that one comin!
(and no, Harold you can't pile on...even though I know you want to)

I would never kick a man when he's down....

Let's move on. I two would love to hear different views on 15:45.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

OOOWWWWCCCCHHHH!. Man oh man did I have that one comin!

Wasn't aiming at you. It is just a perspective.

But I think there is something in a view of the Bible as broadly instructive to us common folk without a need to be memorizing the details of the deep possibilities of theology. Having those who know those things helps keep it all in line.

Remember, we are likened to sheep being led by a shepherd. While those parables about the sheep, shepherd, fold, gate, etc., did have Jesus as the good shepherd, he also made it clear that there are shepherds that are not simply Christ by implying that we need to have some consideration as to the nature of those shepherding us. If it is "simply Christ" and only that, then we just reject all humans.

And we need to be awake enough to hear nonsense, perk up our ears and say "huh? You're crazy! Get out of here!" Then find someone(s) who is(are) not crazy and allow them to help us from falling off cliffs, wandering off after greener-looking grass, etc.

I have been noticing that Jesus spoke one way to the masses and another to those he was sending to continue in his stead. We like the reference to a kingdom of priests, but I'm beginning to thing that even that had a context. Yes, we are all to be ready to preach the gospel. But our primary goal is living the life man was made to live in obedience and righteousness. If we do that, the opportunities for using our mouths will come. But even then, the best part of our "preaching" is what we can say about the changes in our own lives. We do not need to be ready to provide deep theology. Peter said to be ready to give an answer for what you believe, not for how to understand the description of the decimation of entire groups of people (which, by the way, appears to have never happened). Our living is about righteousness, not better understanding of the theology of the Trinity.

Yet, at the same time, we need to recognize that "Christ became the Holy Spirit" is simply not in the Bible. But that should be enough. Recognize the gross error and turn away from such teachers. Not become our own self-teachers.

[OBW]

As a tack-on to the above. . . .

Note that of all the writings that are good enough that we could have included them in the NT, there are only a very few that were not at least a little off track. And there were only a few others (on or off track). Everyone was not out writing their understanding of theology and getting into the deep stuff. Later on, it was not Augustine v 3,265,974 different views on theology as written by that many people, none of which quite agreed with the others.

There have always been those who have the task of study and leading. Considering that even Paul records setting Peter straight on at least one occasion, it is hard to believe that the intention was that we would all try to become so knowledgeable about all this stuff that we would continually either have a Paul to set us right, or we wander off and start a new group of one.

The better answer is to learn to reject what is clearly not there, and be open to what is reasonably there, even if not taking it hook, line, and sinker.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I have been noticing that Jesus spoke one way to the masses and another to those he was sending to continue in his stead. We like the reference to a kingdom of priests, but I'm beginning to thing that even that had a context.

I've noticed that too, that there were the "inner 3" of Peter, John and James, there were the 12, there were 70 sent out two by two, there were the women who ministered out of their possessions, there were the 120 continuing together in Jerusalem. There were the 500+ Jesus appeared to in resurrection, according to 1 Cor. 15:6. And so forth. The thousands sitting in the grass, grouped in companies of hundreds, receiving the broken-up bread and fish.

And, they didn't all get the same message. Yes, they all were told to love one another, and to seek the kingdom of God, but there clearly was a public ministry and a private one. And the written word, while a public document, has enough overlapping and/or unspecified material, where each one of us could look at and say "This equals that" in a different fashion, that there is much room for public discussion. And much room for private, prayerful consideration, and "study to show thyself approved."

But boilerplate theology on the fringe of orthodoxy, or beyond it, especially on such matters as public debate over the construction of the trinity, doesn't seem to stand up to cost/benefit analysis. I think Paul would have said that. In fact, I think Paul did say that, in various ways at various times. "Let each one be convinced in his own mind," etc.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by aron

But boilerplate theology on the fringe of orthodoxy, or beyond it, especially on such matters as public debate over the construction of the trinity, doesn't seem to stand up to cost/benefit analysis. I think Paul would have said that. In fact, I think Paul did say that, in various ways at various times. "Let each one be convinced in his own mind," etc.

aron, I do fully agree with you about "theology on the fringe of orthodoxy". Life is WAY too short to contend over non-essentials. But I must tell you that non-essentials are exactly what the apostle Paul was talking about when he told the Romans "Let each one be convinced in his own mind". -He was talking about eating meat or not eating meat, or celebrating a certain holiday or not celebrating a certain holiday. He was not talking about anything that is essential to the Christian faith.

I think that any kind of debate/argument/discussion regarding the nature, character or actions of God by definition involves something that is essential to the Christian faith.

Witness Lee flat out claimed that "the Father was called the Son" (and by extension he claimed the Father became the Son). He also went further to claim that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, "became the Life-Giving Spirit" (and by extension he claimed that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit). These claims/teachings/doctrines involve the very nature of the Godhead, and thus they involve matters that touch the very foundational core of the Christian faith.

So, back to 1 Corinthians 15:45 we come.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Witness Lee flat out claimed that "the Father was called the Son" (and by extension he claimed the Father became the Son). He also went further to claim that Jesus Christ, the Son of God, "became the Life-Giving Spirit" (and by extension he claimed that Jesus Christ became the Holy Spirit). These claims/teachings/doctrines involve the very nature of the Godhead, and thus they involve matters that touch the very foundational core of the Christian faith.

So, back to 1 Corinthians 15:45 we come.

And this is the reason that a bunch of armchair theologians are busy working through Lee's nonsense. So far, going back at least to Walter Martin's complaints and most of what has gone on since, there has been a lot who have over-labeled, or have simply labeled (or at least supplied insufficient information on why the label applies). Over at the Bereans forum, Justyn just goes into his description of that alternate form of modalism. But it does not seem to fit (at least to me) and he won't take the time to really show how he thinks Lee's theology fits it. I think Walter Martin did better, but my recollection of the audio was that while he seemed (to me) to accurately point to what was wrong, he didn't describe the error sufficiently for those who might not already have thought through it.

In other words, he correctly pointed to one or more of Lee's errors. His somewhat blunt approach may have seemed cold to some, but he was right. But for those who don't understand the theology, especially when you have been constantly fed an aberrant version of theology, someone needs to slow down and show why, for example, 1 Cor 15:45 does not say Jesus became the Holy Spirit. In fact 1 Cor 15:45 makes no reference to the Holy Spirit.

Let the actual Word of God be the revelation. I really don't need to know much theology to step back from that passage and see that Lee was wrong. In fact, if he was right, then he should have milked it as evidence that we are all becoming God since Paul has used Jesus after the resurrection as the example of what our bodies become in resurrection — the Holy Spirit.

Yeah. Right.

What the Bible actually teaches us is wonderful. But compared to the world of over-adjectivized, uber-spiritual phrases found in message after message by Lee, the actual Bible seems dull. It is more about real life in the real world lived in this age as it would if there had been no fall. There wasn't a lot of meetings in the garden. God came along once a day. And it was good. When he chastised Israel, it was about idolatry and their abuse of there fellow man, especially the "marginal" — widows, orphans, aliens among them. It was not for having dull meetings. Sitting in pews. Hearing one man speak.

That last one is funny to me. We all wax so nostalgic about everyone speaking in the meetings. But I would rather have one to three really say something with meaning and application than get stirred-up over an excited bunch of popcorn kernels popping up to shout little exciting snippets that do not prepare me for my day(s) to come. It is exciting. It seems special. But I think Paul was right when he said to be in order. And the only order in all of that would be the rare occasion when an elder actually stands up and tells someone to sit down. And that is the part we now hate the most.

And while one chapter earlier in 1 Corinthians, I do not think that Paul meant what the LRC is busy doing (or was busy doing pre- ministry station meetings) when he said "all can prophesy." Once again, the context speaks against it. The reading we seem to like for that one sentence is just to much "squirrel" to be understood in that way.

Prophets prophecy. Prophets are those with the gift (see chapter 12). And despite Paul's wish that all could prophesy, he did not declare that all have the gift. Just that if they are all going to do one thing, it would be better to prophesy than to speak in tongues. (Context). And then two chapters later, telling them to stop having three-ring circus meetings, he places limits on things. A few songs. A few tongues, but only if there is someone there who speaks the language. Two or three to prophesy (speak). And since prophets prophesy, then they are the only "all" who can prophesy. Those with other gifts are not suddenly given carte blanche to go beyond their gifts. To read it otherwise is to have yet another "squirrel" moment.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

Those with other gifts are not suddenly given carte blanche to go beyond their gifts...

All of us, arguably, are gifted. God is a businessman, in one sense. Jesus repeatedly touched this in the parables. God dispenses, and expects return. But there are limits on gifts. Nobody has the universal, all-inclusive gift which all must imitate, unless they are named Jesus Christ the Nazarene. The rest are redeemed and regenerated sinners, attempting to re-create the journey home to the Father.

And we need the gifts, all of them. But if any name other than Jesus becomes interposed as a mediator of the flock, whether Darby, Luther, Calvin, or Nee, I argue that it unnaturally suppresses the function of the rest. And I say this specifically in relation to crafting a theology of the trinity. There has been much discussion of this subject since the last apostle put down his quill, or stopped speaking to his attendant scribe. But I don't see any one speaker or author or thinker having the definitive word in this matter. God has gifts to men, but there are limits to those gifts. God gives the Spirit without measure, but each vessel is limited. Along with the gift is a requirement not to go beyond the measure. Even some of the angels violated this code, according to Jude verse 6.

Now back to my previous post, about unanimity co-existing within multiplicity: if Jesus told them to wait in Jerusalem for the coming of the Holy Spirit, then why, ten days later, did tongues of flame sit on each one? Why did singularity get manifested as plurality? Was God divided in that upper room? Obviously not.

I have probably written far too much already here, and so will attempt to exit the field... probably ungraciously, sorry to say. But I will exit.

[aron]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

So, back to 1 Corinthians 15:45 we come.

Okay, I will pick up your gauntlet. Or at least try to re-iterate why I think nobody can pick up the gauntlet, adequately.

1 Corinthians 15:45 is being presented to us by LSM as a continuation of the "became" in the gospel of John chapter 1. There, the beloved disciple presented the astonishing proposition that "God... became flesh", which is a shocking thought -- it certainly was a head-on assault on the gnosis that was penetrating Christian circles. Supposedly, and it does make sense, light and perfection could never co-exist with the fallen, darkened material realm. But the glorious source of perfection itself became "sarx", a bag of flesh, according to John.

Now, did Paul continue this idea in his first epistle to the Corinthians, at least subconsciously, to let some adroit scholar like WL raise it before the church? Or was he talking about something different? I can't definitively answer that, and hopefully my ruminations won't stumble someone trying to escape the clutches of the LSM. "Yeah, maybe the blendeds are wrong, but look what happens when you leave the local ground! These folks is flat-out crazy, man!!"

So, on to speculation... the whole "processed Triune God" idea perhaps requires an application of this: "There is one God, one Lord, one Spirit, one faith, one baptism..." So if Jesus became "A" life-giving spirit, then perforce He became "THE" life giving Spirit, i.e. the Holy Spirit. That seems to be the logic. I can still hear: "If 'the Lord is the Spirit', there in 2 Corinthians 3:17, then how many spirits are there?" Did anyone else hear WL ask that question: "How many life-giving spirits does the Bible contain?"

I would counter with, "And he answered and spoke unto me, saying, This is the word of Jehovah unto Zerubbabel, saying, Not by might, nor by power, but by my Spirit, saith Jehovah of hosts." (Darby) Who is my Spirit, here? Singular? "The" Holy Spirit? Why then "Jehovah of hosts", plural? And why do we continually shy from the multiplicity seen in the text? Surely there is unanimity within not only the Godhead but within the kingdom itself. "You all shall be one" is a primary command. Yet I am not Unto, nor OBW, nor Ohio nor awareness. Why do we insist God conform to our theology? A tree is not a fish, nor a fish a tree, yet both point to and glorify their source. The "hosts" in question may be "ministering spirits" perhaps, and not THE Spirit, but still we have multiplicity and unity, and LSM's theology apparently cannot handle the multiplicity part. It can't, period: it just collapses when plural manifestations occur. To survive, therefore, it needs to collapse plurality, a fish has to "become" a tree and so forth. Only then can "Christ become all in all" to them. So all the troublesome parts of the Bible are explained away (often by changing definitions of the same word!) or simply ignored.

I find that simplistic, boiler-plate statements of theology attempting to explicitly define, as Unto put it, "the very nature of the Godhead" often end up ignoring vast, vague, troublesome, and/or seemingly contradictory/irreconcilable parts of scripture that don't conform to the theology at hand. The LSM acolytes wave their choice portions of scripture like 1 Cor 15:45 "B" while ignoring dozens or even hundreds of equally choice portions of scripture that were not profitable to their ministry and its oeuvre. They like the "my Spirit" part of Zech 4:6 but don't like the "hosts" part. So they pretend it doesn't exist. Their theology can't even make it through one verse, Zechariah 4:6, unscathed! They have to ignore Zechariah 4:6 "D"... they can only use parts "A", "B", and "C" for their theology. Why? What idea is so mesmerizing that the Bible has to bow, trembling, before it? Especially while YOU, Mr expert theologian, are still here in your untransfigured flesh?

As Hamlet said, "There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, than are dreamt of in your philosophy." I know, that was a couple of days before poor Hamlet committed suicide, but still... nice quote. Couldn't resist.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

I find that simplistic, boiler-plate statements of theology attempting to explicitly define, as Unto put it, "the very nature of the Godhead" often end up ignoring vast, vague, troublesome, and/or seemingly contradictory/irreconcilable parts of scripture that don't conform to the theology at hand.

Perhaps I am a naive simpleton, but I have no issue with "the last Adam becoming a life-giving Spirit." Is that THE Holy Spirit? Does now the 2nd become the 3rd? I don't know and I frankly don't care.

I honestly find no attempt in scripture to properly and adequately explain to us all the theology of the Trinity. Then why should I be discontent if I or others cannot properly and adequately explain the theology of the Trinity?