Lee's Trinity

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't claim to understand 'oneness' but one thing I do know is that the LC has got it all wrong.

Many Christians think the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't matter. But what's interesting is that many aberrant groups tend to have aberrant views of the Trinity. That doesn't prove anything but it might suggest that our view of the dynamic between the one and the many in the Trinity informs our view of the same dynamic among people.

Lee stressed the essential oneness of the Trinity, so it's probably no coincidence that is what he stressed in the Church. Lee had no interest in diversity. He wasn't always that extreme. But as he got older he more and more insisted on uniformity. In his view if we were all like Christ we should more or less be identical. And he believed local churches should be identical. But that stands in stark contrast to God's expression in creation. Look at the many different ways God manifests himself in thousand and thousands of different types of creatures and plants. But Lee thought when it came to people we should all strive to be the same, even down to the same white shirts, dark pants and black shoes.

Again this is evidence of his abusive, over-controlling approach.

To me the Trinity shows two main things: One, life is about relationships. Two, unity does not trump diversity, nor vice versa. Both should co-exist equally.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Many Christians think the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't matter. But what's interesting is that many aberrant groups tend to have aberrant views of the Trinity.

That's right.

The New Testament provides us with very little emphasis on Trinitarian theology. When things do get addressed it is in the form of rebuttals. In other words, when aberrant groups began to spread their heretical teachings in the church, whether they be gnostics, Catholics, JDubs, or Mormons, at that point the apostles and teachers must step in to rightly divide the word of God in order to shepherd the church of God.

Apart from that, the N.T. exhorts us to pay our attention, not to theology and endless doctrinal discussions, but to the works of faith and labors of love.

[Drake]

Good discussion.

Originally Posted by Igzy

Lee stressed the essential oneness of the Trinity, so it's probably no coincidence that is what he stressed in the Church.

Not accurate.

Brother Lee affirmed the essential oneness of the Trinity but stressed the economical Trinity. Conflating the two led to a lot of misunderstanding.

"Lee's Trinity" cannot be understood without the distinction he made.

Nevertheless, I agree with the sentiment that it is a conceptually challenging topic.

Drake

[Cal]

Drake, Lee did indeed focus on the economical side of the Trinity. In fact he said the reason God was triune was for his economy. Now that that's an ontological mouthful when you think about it.

At the risk of tooting my own horn, here is part of something I've been working on:


The Trinity—God’s Relationship with Himself

The Bible reveals a fascinating and baffling fact about God—that he is triune. Triune simply means three-one. God is revealed in the Bible to be three Persons—the Father, Son and Holy Spirit—while remaining one God. This is a difficult concept for all of us. The Triune God, or Trinity, is such a challenging idea that many Christians just choose to downplay it. Yet an appreciation of the Trinity greatly enriches our relationship with God.

The Persons of the Trinity are more than roles the one God plays or hats he wears. Each is eternal, co-existing, and has a relationship with the other, and each is fully God. The relationship between the Father and the Son is shown to be a full-blown personal love relationship of two conscious beings. Yet there are not three Gods, there is only one. So how can God be three Persons, yet remain one God, and what does that mean?

The Bible doesn’t explain the Trinity; it simply presents it as a reality. In the Trinity the three are shown to have certain roles—the Father conceives, the Son reflects, and the Spirit communicates. The Father is the source of God, the Son is the expression of God, and the Spirit is the reality or experience of God.

But how can one be three, and vice versa? Here’s one way of looking at it. Every self-conscious being has three unavoidable aspects of consciousness—what it is, what it thinks it is, and the relationship between the two. God has these aspects as well. God the Father can be viewed as God in himself, God the Son as God’s idea of himself, and God the Spirit as the relationship between the two.

Human beings also have a self, a self-image and the relationship between the two. But we are not perfect, and our self-knowledge is neither complete nor perfect, thus our self-images are not perfect, and so our relationships with ourselves are incomplete and rocky. But God’s self-knowledge is perfect, as is his self-image. He has no problems with himself, there is nothing about himself that he doesn’t know, accept and love. So his relationship with himself is also perfect. This relationship is the essence of God, the Holy Spirit.

God the Son is God’s idea of himself, and since God’s idea of himself is perfect and without error, the Son is the absolute perfect image of God, even to the point of being a person unto himself. The Father and the Son have a perfect relationship, a flow of love and light between each other, which is just the Holy Spirit. The Spirit, then, is the essence of God, the reality of who he is. Isn’t how you relate to yourself ultimately the essence of who you are?

Now it goes to another level. God’s self-love is so pure and holy that it can be manifested as sacrificial love for himself. Thus when the Son Jesus sacrificed himself to do the Father’s will it was real sacrificial love in every way.

Since being triune is a necessary aspect of any intelligent, self-aware being, it turns out that each of us is a trinity. So we are more in the image of God than we might have thought.

Finally, if God exists he must be Triune. Thus the Christian model of God is not only correct, it is the only one possible.

[Drake]

-1

Igzy,

Are you trying to describe the essential Trinity?

Drake

[Cal]

Yes. Something similar was held by Jonathan Edwards and now by John Piper.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Yes. Something similar was held by Jonathan Edwards and now by John Piper.

Okay Igzy.. I think it is also important to acknowledge that for us to describe the Triune God, or Trinity if you prefer, is extremely difficult because we are like ants trying to grasp the concept of humans. In this life we will never understand the Triune God beyond the limitations of our human capacity, both mental and spiritual. We will struggle for the words to describe sonething we see darkly at best.

On balance, we also have a responsibility to pursue an understanding of all matters delivered to us in the Holy Writ. To neglect striving to understand the Triune God as revealed in the Bible would be irresponsible and despising a birthright God has given to us. As believers we need to exercise due diligence to explore every verse that would give us greater insight into God's essence and God's direct actions with man. Or said differently, the essential Trinity and the economical Trinity.

Only a careful, thoughtful, and prayerful consideration of this will yield any meaningful result. Otherwise we are guity of just wasting our time and vainly considering the things of God. Yet, perhaps while explaining the Triune God we will venture afield from what is revealed in the Word. Let's just agree to reel each other back in when that happens without the backbiting.

Still, I have doubt that this forum is capable of rationally discussing this topic. It's a relevant topic for sure but almost every topic devolves rapidly into what some believe are the roots of all evil. It is a serious topic but personal agendas will hinder critical analysis and the handling this topic deserves. But, we'll see.

This title below of the Igzy piece indicates the challenge of understanding the essential Trinity.

Igzy) "The Trinity—God’s Relationship with Himself"

The essential Trinity exists from eternity past to eternity future. What can we, from our limited vantage point, understand about God's relationship with Himself? There is far more in the Bible that defines the economical Trinity, where Brother Lee focused his ministry, than the essential Trinity.

Drake

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To me the Trinity shows two main things: One, life is about relationships. Two, unity does not trump diversity, nor vice versa. Both should co-exist equally.

And this is how the church should be. If God is unity and diversity, so should the church be. Lee wanted a church that was unified and uniform, but with no diversity. That is not God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Trapped

And this is how the church should be. If God is unity and diversity, so should the church be. Lee wanted a church that was unified and uniform, but with no diversity. That is not God.

There is a verse that says, "The voice of the LORD divideth the flames of fire" Psa 29:7 KJV

God divides, and it's okay. There are seven distinct flames sitting before God. Moses saw them on the mountain, I daresay, because God told him, "See that you build everything as you saw it" and he built a candlestick with seven flames. Multiplicity is good, in this regard. Division is not bad, but really what we'd call "multiplication". One flame became seven. But the light was one. God divided the flames and it was good. (and, did you ever see lightning?)

Those flames dancing over the heads on Pentecost, did they look "exactly identical, with no differences whatsoever"? Really? How do you know? 120 flames dancing. What a sight.

Answer: we don't know if they looked identical or not. We see star differ from star in glory and evidently that's okay (1 Cor 15:41). Let's not presume identical appearance if it isn't stated or even inferred from common, everyday sense of the words as they were written.

Regarding the Trinity: Does "the Son sits at the Father's right hand" mean anything if the Son is actually the Father? I daresay, no. Let's not change words as they were written, or ignore them, and then make that change or avoidance a pre-condition for fellowship.

As I get older, my reading of scripture "hardens" as meanings derived from one passage carry over to other sections. Gradually a picture emerges. I become convinced that I "see" a meta-narrative emerging in the Word of God. Okay, that fine, but suppose I insisted on everyone agreeing with my emerging vision as necessary for all Christian fellowship? What kind of person would I be then? Not very receiving, nor charitable. Jesus met people where they were.

If my readings cut others off from fellowship, then what good are my readings? If I insist that all Christian fellowship is dependent upon everyone being "absolutely identical, with no differences whatever" with my peculiar vision, what am I setting us up for? Slavish imitation followed by 'storms' and 'rebellions'.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by aron

There is a verse that says, "The voice of the LORD divideth the flames of fire" Psa 29:7 KJV

God divides, and it's okay. There are seven distinct flames sitting before God. Moses saw them on the mountain, I daresay, because God told him, "See that you build everything as you saw it" and he built a candlestick with seven flames. Multiplicity is good, in this regard. Division is not bad, but really what we'd call "multiplication". One flame became seven. But the light was one. God divided the flames and it was good. (and, did you ever see lightning?)

Answer: we don't know if they looked identical or not. We see star differ from star in glory and evidently that's okay (1 Cor 15:41). Let's not presume identical appearance if it isn't stated or even inferred from common, everyday sense of the words as they were written.

Continuing with your thought . . .

Perhaps then 7 Golden Lampstands in Revelations 2-3 are the same Golden Lampstand in the heavens duplicated in those 7 different towns with assemblies in the name of Jesus?

If Jesus, the Son of Man, walked in the 7 towns of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, etc. does that mean there were 7 Jesus's, or just the same Son of Man walking in the midst of every assembly gathered in His name?

[aron]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Continuing with your thought . . .

Perhaps then 7 Golden Lampstands in Revelations 2-3 are the same Golden Lampstand in the heavens duplicated in those 7 different towns with assemblies in the name of Jesus?

If Jesus, the Son of Man, walked in the 7 towns of Ephesus, Smyrna, Pergamos, etc. does that mean there were 7 Jesus's, or just the same Son of Man walking in the midst of every assembly gathered in His name?

In my previous post I was combining issues because they seem related: WL held that there are no distinctions in the Godhead but that "the Father" means "the Son" means "the Spirit"; similarly that all the local churches (and all the saints) must be "absolutely identical with no differences [notable distinctions]" among them. So Trapped summed it up with the word "uniformity", saying that unity doesn't mean bland, undifferentiated uniformity, or loss of distinction (diversity). Neither scripture nor common human experience supports that. The universe isn't an undifferentiated mass but is full distinctions which don't stem from Satan's rebellion. Star differs from star in glory, not in shame. And then, I asked, how can the Father sit at His own right hand? How does anyone read scripture thus?

And along with Ohio's point above, how can the Father be on the throne and walking in the midst of His seven-fold intensified self? Does that make any sense? Would any first-century reader have surmised this from the text? And to add insult to injury, to make such tortured readings the basis for our Christian unity or "practical oneness"... (insert scrunched-up-face icon here)...

[aron]

You'll have to bear with me, but I've been communicating with other humans for all my life and have built up patterns and understandings that are hard to shake at this point. If I'm speaking with Joe, and he says, "Yesterday I was with Bill, and I gave him a coat", then that has a certain meaning. If then, they tell me, that really Joe is Bill and also the coat, then the sentence has no meaning.

The person, and the other and the object that passes between them are given distinctions.

Likewise, if I see, "I do the Father's will", then "I" and "the Father" are assumed by convention to be distinct. Or, "He sat down at the right hand of the Father", or "God raised him and gave him glory", or "This is My Son in whom I delight". In all these cases, if both parties are one and the same, the sentences have lost any conventional meaning.

How can Jesus sit on the throne as the Father, and walk about in the midst of the seven lampstands, which hold himself as the Sevenfold Spirit? It simply makes no sense.

"Well it's a mystery". Why even write words then if they have no meaning?

[Cal]

Originally Posted by aron

"Well it's a mystery". Why even write words then if they have no meaning?

They have meaning. You just don't understand the meaning yet. And are possibly looking in the wrong direction for answers.

You can just as well be talking about someone who says, "Light is a particle and light is a wave." Science tells us light has characteristics of both. But the two are incompatible in our conceptualization. Perhaps the problem is that we really don't understand what "particle" and "wave" really imply.

The problem is not that such statements are absurd, but that we don't understand what they are are actually implying. Sometimes words and ideas fall short to describe phenomenon that we have few points of reference for. For example, four dimensions are possible. But we can't visualize four dimensions.

I think one reason the Trinity is such puzzle for some is that they are looking in the wrong places for answers. They try to figure it out in spatial terms, when it is really explained, I believe, in relational terms. God is not spatial. Everything he is about is about persons and relationships. When we say the Son is at the right hand of God we mean he shares God's throne of authority, not that he is physically sitting there. When we say the Son is walking among the lampstands, we mean that he is closely concerned for them, not that he's actually walking around.

When I started to picture the Trinity from the perspective of a self-conscious person who has a relationship with himself, it began to make much more sense to me.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by aron

You'll have to bear with me, but I've been communicating with other humans for all my life and have built up patterns and understandings that are hard to shake at this point. If I'm speaking with Joe, and he says, "Yesterday I was with Bill, and I gave him a coat", then that has a certain meaning. If then, they tell me, that really Joe is Bill and also the coat, then the sentence has no meaning.

The person, and the other and the object that passes between them are given distinctions.

Likewise, if I see, "I do the Father's will", then "I" and "the Father" are assumed by convention to be distinct. Or, "He sat down at the right hand of the Father", or "God raised him and gave him glory", or "This is My Son in whom I delight". In all these cases, if both parties are one and the same, the sentences have lost any conventional meaning.

How can Jesus sit on the throne as the Father, and walk about in the midst of the seven lampstands, which hold himself as the Sevenfold Spirit? It simply makes no sense.

"Well it's a mystery". Why even write words then if they have no meaning?

This is my problem too. If the Son IS the Father, then "I am in the Father and the Father is in Me" 1) doesn't mean anything and 2) isn't special or amazing or noteworthy at all. If the Son is the Father, then God's coinherence is meaningless. There have to be two distinct things, otherwise if you blend two things together that ARE each other, there is no realistic blending because it's the same thing. The CO of CO-inherence by its very nature implies two different things, otherwise you are just babbling.

"That they all may be one even as we are one" also loses its impact since there is nothing special about being one with yourself. And by extenstion this this means "that we would all be each other". It devolves into one big "HUH?"

The Bible and God are enough to wrestle with. There has to be a modicum of rationality.

I try to say these things to LCers sometimes and they are staunch defenders of Lee's view without the ability to even entertain anything else. I just got "you just don't see" as if I was short of the vision. I just thought, "I don't want to see if it means I have to suspend all logical thought".