Lee's Trinity

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Drake

Freedom,

I think of it this way. There is a distinction between the Father, Son, and Spirit in the Godhead yet not a separation. The Father, Son, and Spirit co-exist, are co-equal, and coinhere from eternity past to eternity future though they have different "roles". Igzy used "roles" and for lack of a better word at this moment I believe that is where any distinction lies. So the Son declares the Father as part of His (the Son's) role.

Subordination of the Son to the Father is related to the Son's position as a man. Though a perfect man, as God originally intended, and a man without sin. yet, His humanity stood in the position of death as indicated by His baptism. So subordination is not in the Godhead (the essential Trinity) but in the economical Trinity (the work of God for, with, in, and related to man).

Drake

The essential/economical separation is how the LC attempts to defend Lee's views, but that still doesn't validate certain things that WL taught. For example, he stated that "the entire Godhead, the Triune God, became flesh." There is no mistaking what WL said and was intending to imply. The distinction between essential/economical can't account for statements like these.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Freedom

The essential/economical separation is how the LC attempts to defend Lee's views, but that still doesn't validate certain things that WL taught. For example, he stated that "the entire Godhead, the Triune God, became flesh." There is no mistaking what WL said and was intending to imply. The distinction between essential/economical can't account for statements like these.

Freedom,

At what point in time did the Triune God co-existing and co-inhering from eternity past to eternity future become separated?

Are you saying that in incarnation, when the Word become flesh, the co-inherence of the Triune God changed?

I believe the definition of "Para" as may be found in John 6:46, 7:29, and 16:27 maintains the eternal status of the essential Trinity. That is orthodox is it not?

Drake

[Cal]

That classic approach to the Godhead always ends in a conundrum.

If you try to see it as three persons who are somehow one person it doesn't make sense.

If you try to see it as three persons you get three gods.

If you try to see it as one person who plays different roles you get modalism.

I'm not satisfied with that classic approach because it leaves so many questions unanswered. Such as:

How can each be distinct, but also each be the whole God?

How can the three be one and the one be three?

Why is the Father's and Son's relationship with the Spirit so different than their relationship with each other? Why do we hear about their love for each other but not of their love for the Spirit?

If we are in God's image and God is triune, how are we triune like he is?


But the Edwards/Piper approach seems to answer nicely these questions.

For a perfect being, his self and self-image would each be perfect and complete. And the relationship between the two would be also. Each would be the whole him in its own way, yet each would be distinct. Each would co-exist and co-inhere from eternity to eternity.

It also shows how the Father and Son can be the same, yet different. The self and self-image of God are really the same thing, yet they are not. Also, in God the relationship between the two is the same as both, yet distinct. Each are God, the whole God, yet each are different.

And in our own imperfect and shadowy way, we can see how we are in the image of this triune being.

I believe, ultimately, that "finding our soul" will be when we come to have the kind of healthy relationship with ourselves that God has with himself. Of course, this will only come by the grace of God.

I think the way of looking at it fits too well for there to be nothing to it. But, again, it's just a theory, not a matter for contention.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Drake

Freedom,

At what point in time did the Triune God co-existing and co-inhering from eternity past to eternity future become separated?

Are you saying that in incarnation, when the Word become flesh, the co-inherence of the Triune God changed?

I believe the definition of "Para" as may be found in John 6:46, 7:29, and 16:27 maintains the eternal status of the essential Trinity. That is orthodox is it not?

Drake

No one is trying to 'separate' God into three gods, and it seems like you are misrepresenting the arguments that have been made. Even the supposed 'tritheism' of Christians at large was a straw man constructed by Lee. The distinction that the vast majority of Christians make between the Father, Son and Holy Spirit are not made in err, it’s as simple as people following the pattern that the Bible presents us with. Consider what kind of language the Apostle Paul used when referring to God, particularly in his salutation at the beginning of each epistle. He used phrases like "The God and Father of the Lord Jesus." Actually, probably a majority of these greetings mention both the Father and Son. When faced with such distinct language as a pattern, upon what basis would we move to a more general terminology like “the Triune God”?

As Igzy has pointed out, I do think there is some leeway in how we develop an understanding of who God is, but I take issue with how Lee handled things. The Trinity represents an understanding of God which has deemed to be orthodox. It's perfectly acceptable to have a common understanding by which to compare teachings that could be heretical. I don't think that Lee was purposely trying to teach anything heretical (albeit maybe he liked saying things for shock value), but heretical was exactly the perception that outsiders got. And of course he wasn't willing to retract or revise anything he said, he only doubled down, and the problem increased. Ultimately, statements like the "Triune God became flesh" or "the Son is the Father" neither reflect the language used to refer to God in the Bible, nor is something that most people would be comfortable with. So why was Lee so insistent on his own terminology?

[Drake]

Igzy)" If you try to see it as three persons who are somehow one person it doesn't make sense.

If you try to see it as three persons you get three gods.

If you try to see it as one person who plays different roles you get modalism.

I'm not satisfied with that classic approach because it leaves so many questions unanswered."


On the left side of the road is the ditch called tritheism.... or three Gods of you prefer.

On the right side is the ditch of modalism. One God in three modes.

Down the center is the truth. Challenge is explaining it without falling into either ditch.

Drake

[OBW]

From what I can see, the problem is that the views that create the "ditch" on either side are presuming a singular view of some aspect of humanity layered over God.

Saying that God is one person as we understand a person as being a single individual (not in the legal sense of either an individual or a body corporate), then there are problems with there being a Father of a Son that can pray back to the Father.

Saying that they are simply three persons creates a cloud over the claim to be "One God." At least as far as we can understand it.

Yet it would appear that God discussed the creation of man and said "let us make man in our image. . . ." So there is clearly a plurality. Yet only one image. Only one representation. Diversity that can discuss and unity in image.

The best (and still pathetic) comparison I can dream up looks like a joint venture of three that faces the universe as one. The problem with that is that our understanding of such a thing never has the three truly "one" in much of anything other than that first decision to join together.

But there is something solidly described showing three throughout the scripture. And yet they are so one that they have only one image. One likeness. Saying they are one person is not adequate. Neither is simply saying they are three persons. Yet they are more "one" internally that most of us are within ourselves on a good day. Yet that oneness does not lose the three into one, nor cause any one to be the other. Rather it defines the completeness with which they are unified and therefore "one."

But oneness does not create sameness. The Triune God did not become flesh. The Son did. The Triune God did not die on the cross or resurrect. The Son did. Neither the Triune God nor the Son "turned his face away." The Father did.

In no way does any one of them "become" the other. Any reading of scripture to say such a thing is a gross misreading and a prime example of proof texting, the fine art of using small portions of biblical text without concern for its context to impose understanding onto it rather than reading from it. I have come to refer to this method of scripture reading as the "fortune cookie" method of understanding the Bible in which small snippets not much longer than the little sayings on fortune cookies are used to create the impression of something being said that could not be fathomed if the rest of the context was considered.

Both Nee and Lee were masters at this. Now they were not the first, nor will they be the last to use such methods. But they excelled in it. And a system of error grew from it such that the adherents of that method are incapable of seeing beyond their pabulum of spiritual nonsense.

Do I think that Nee and or Lee willfully deceived through this kind of error? I must admit that I am not sure. But the signs that they should not be trusted as spiritual leaders or teachers are there to help us be wary of their teachings.

[Drake]

OBW,

Not so fast!

If the Father, Son, and Spirit co-exist and coinhere as co-equals from eternity past to eternity future how is it possible that "The Triune God did not become flesh. The Son did. The Triune God did not die on the cross or resurrect. The Son did".

Please advise.

Thanks
Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

If the Father, Son, and Spirit co-exist and coinhere as co-equals from eternity past to eternity future how is it possible that "The Triune God did not become flesh. The Son did. The Triune God did not die on the cross or resurrect. The Son did".

Silly man! For the same reason that the Lord Jesus prayed "Our Father who art IN HEAVEN" and also proclaimed "if you have seen me you have seen the Father". For the same reason the Lord Jesus said "where I am going you cannot follow" and also proclaimed "lo, I am with you always". If you would spend less time pray-reading the words of a dead guy and more time reading the living and abiding Word of God, you wouldn't be filled up with so many "ifs", "why?s" and "how come?s".
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW,

Not so fast!

If the Father, Son, and Spirit co-exist and coinhere as co-equals from eternity past to eternity future how is it possible that "The Triune God did not become flesh. The Son did. The Triune God did not die on the cross or resurrect. The Son did".

Please advise.

Thanks
Drake

That's right. It is wrong to say that *only* the Son became flesh - that is the heresy of tri-theism, that the Son is separated from the Father and the Spirit. We only need to look into the conception of Christ to realize that the Spirit of the Father, even the Father Himself, conceived Christ. The Father did not create a third thing, but clothed Himself with human flesh. Therefore the Spirit of the Father, and the Father Himself were present in Christ's life even to the cross.

http://biblehub.com/sermons/pub/chri...uman_flesh.htm
The pure Godhead is terrible to behold; we could not see it and live; but clothing Himself with our flesh, makes the Divine nature more amiable and delightful to us. Now we need not be afraid to look upon God, seeing Him through Christ's human nature. It was a custom of old among the shepherds, they were wont to clothe themselves with sheep-skins, to be more pleasing to the sheep; so Christ clothed Himself with our flesh, that the Divine nature may be more pleasing to us. The human nature is a glass, through which we may see the love and wisdom and glory of God clearly represented to us. Through the lantern of Christ's humanity, we may behold the light of the Deity shining.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

Not so fast!

If the Father, Son, and Spirit co-exist and coinhere as co-equals from eternity past to eternity future how is it possible that "The Triune God did not become flesh. The Son did. The Triune God did not die on the cross or resurrect. The Son did".

Now you are relying on human terms added to the extra-scriptural definition of the Trinity to make it so iron-clad that it cannot wiggle from your definition.

Co-exist does not mean totally and completely the same. Neither does co-equal. You are inferring beyond the definitions to arrive at something never stated. And the definitions are not as "stated in scripture" but as added as part of the efforts of humans to understand something that was not written to be understood in all ways.

If you think that the term "co-exist" is added for the purpose of making God an indivisible unit, then you are misreading the scripture. Jesus died on the cross while the Father turned his back. There is no account in which the Triune God died on the cross and simultaneously turned His back on the whole scene. It is a fabricated construct designed to arrive at a false conclusion about the nature of God. You think it sounds "logical" but only with respect to a small portion of the descriptive references to God. You force a terse understanding of the One God and dismiss the clear statements that contradict your understanding.

Either you or Evangelical made the comment about the extremes being a ditch with the truth somewhere in the middle. But this argument that the Triune God died on the cross is clearly in the ditch of the Modalist. It is an extreme that is deep into the ditch.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Drake

Not so fast!

If the Father, Son, and Spirit co-exist and coinhere as co-equals from eternity past to eternity future how is it possible that "The Triune God did not become flesh. The Son did. The Triune God did not die on the cross or resurrect. The Son did".

Please advise.

Thanks
Drake

Drake, do you really want us to advise you? I doubt.

The Bible never says "The Triune God became flesh." The Bible says the Word became flesh. The Word, who was with God, and was God. Neither did the "Triune God die on the cross."

These are all Lee's illogical and extra-biblical speculations and inferences. Using the same tools, some of his followers even proclaimed Lee was #4, right after the Spirit, and that he was the "acting God," as well as a "god-man."

If the Father died on the cross, then who did Jesus pray to. And who was judging the Son on the cross for all of our sins.

I really wish you would return to the pure word of God. Didn't you once say that the "Triune God was your favorite subject." Kindly limit your teachings to scripture.

[Evangelical]

The Bible says:

1 Cor 15:45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.

If the last Adam i.e. Christ did not become the Spirit, then we have a problem - there are TWO life giving spirits in the universe. How can there be two Holy Spirits? This is equivalent to saying there is more than one God. Christ is one life giving spirit, and the Holy Spirit is another. How can the life-giving spirit which Christ became, be any different from the Holy Spirit, the "Spirit of Christ" ?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Bible says:

1 Cor 15:45 So also it is written, “The first man, Adam, became a living soul”; the last Adam became a life-giving Spirit.

If the last Adam i.e. Christ did not become the Spirit, then we have a problem - there are TWO life giving spirits in the universe. How can there be two Holy Spirits? This is equivalent to saying there is more than one God. Christ is one life giving spirit, and the Holy Spirit is another. How can the life-giving spirit which Christ became, be any different from the Holy Spirit, the "Spirit of Christ" ?

This is one of the most easy errors to refute. Start your reading several verses before 45 and see what Paul was talking about. He was discussing the nature of the body that Christ received in resurrection. Paul, in referring to a body that is touchable, yet can be invisible and move into and out of locked room, he said that it was "spiritual" meaning that it was not simply physical.

When he gets to verse 45, he has not changed subjects. He compares the nature of the body that man receives at birth (as represented by Adam) to what Jesus received in resurrection. That body was "spiritual" and he called it "spirit." In no part of the discussion, which continues on for a few more verses, is there any reference to the Holy Spirit or to the Father, or to the Triune God in general. It just isn't there. It is forced into the verse by removing it from its context and forcing false understanding onto the words.

God is spirit. But God isn't the Holy Spirit. Jesus is spirit. But Jesus isn't the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit is also spirit.

The nature of God is spirit. The fact that the name of one of the three uses the word "spirit" in it does not deny the nature of being "spirit" to the other two unless they simply become that one.

And the whole "there is only one life giving spirit" mantra is something Lee made up. He didn't find it in the scripture. Jesus gives life. He is spirit. So he is a life giving spirit. The same can be said of the Father. These are facts you can find in the scripture. Lee conveniently ignored them and fabricated this false construct to push the envelope — the discussion of the Trinity — into the ditch of modalism.

And since Lee was fond of saying that it is in the Bible and suggesting that you can look it up for yourself, I think it might do you some good to look for references that support what I just said and only if you can't find them come back and try to hint that I am wrong. Don't just look for the ones that support your position. I've read them many times. And you started your post with one of the most popular ones — and one of the most ridiculous ones at that.

The fact that you can continue to spout that one as a proof text is evidence that you will look no further than where Lee wanted you to look. You will not even consider evidence from the Bible that refutes it.

Says a lot for the theological integrity of your teachings.