Lee's Trinity

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I'm simply saying that the word "dispensing" could be used to suggest what goes on in a relationship--something of each person being sent to and received by the other. I do not really like the word "dispensing" because it sounds clinical and impersonal, which is exactly the opposite of what it is. It is very personal--it is one Person giving of himself to another in a complete way. It is the essence of a personal relationship--the pouring of oneself into another.

I'm also NOT suggesting that God is Triune primarily for relationship with (dispensing into) man, as Lee suggested. On the contrary, I'm saying that God is Triune primarily for relationship with (dispensing into) Himself. This is what I've been saying all along--that God experiences a relationship with himself, that is God experiences the Spirit with his Son.

Our blessing is he invites us into this relationship he has with himself. The Spirit has always been the experience of God within himself--that is the Spirit has always been the fellowship between the Father and the Son. Now we get to experience it too.

My comment is mainly for those who come here buried in the Leeology of the LRC and presume that it is all about dispensing. That dispensing is the purpose and goal of God's economy, and that dispensing is something that we need more of before we can "do" anything, especially the non-spiritual things like actually living the righteousness of God. There is too much wrapped into that in their minds. And that God is in relationship within the Trinity is seen as almost pointless since they are not separate, but are each other.

Maybe it is just that from my perspective, whatever positive you might find in the word "dispensing," it has been buried in something entirely different by Lee's theology and is therefore what is heard when you use the word.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

My comment is mainly for those who come here buried in the Leeology of the LRC and presume that it is all about dispensing. That dispensing is the purpose and goal of God's economy, and that dispensing is something that we need more of before we can "do" anything, especially the non-spiritual things like actually living the righteousness of God. There is too much wrapped into that in their minds. And that God is in relationship within the Trinity is seen as almost pointless since they are not separate, but are each other.

Maybe it is just that from my perspective, whatever positive you might find in the word "dispensing," it has been buried in something entirely different by Lee's theology and is therefore what is heard when you use the word.

I agree. The Lee version of the Trinity depersonalizes God himself and relationships in general. Ironically, an "impersonal relationship" is actually an oxymoron. If God is interested in anything he is interested in being intimate with us. How could he be interested in such a thing if it did not exist within him from the beginning? The reality of the Trinity confirms that it did.

All the LCM sees about the Trinity is it is some sort of cascading aquaduct to pour liquid God stuff into us. Not very personal. So I do not think it is any coincidence that the LCM discouraged personal relationships between people. Their God model is one of a God who is impersonal even within Himself.

Now I know those in the LCM may experience a sweet relationship with God. I'm just saying their Trinity model works against that some. It misses the deep interpersonal aspect of God which the Trinity implies.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I agree. The Lee version of the Trinity depersonalizes God himself and relationships in general. Ironically, an "impersonal relationship" is actually an oxymoron. If God is interested in anything he is interested in being intimate with us. How could he be interested in such a thing if it did not exist within him from the beginning? The reality of the Trinity confirms that it did.

All the LCM sees about the Trinity is it is some sort of cascading aquaduct to pour liquid God stuff into us. Not very personal. So I do not think it is any coincidence that the LCM discouraged personal relationships between people. Their God model is one of a God who is impersonal even within Himself.

Now I know those in the LCM may experience a sweet relationship with God. I'm just saying their Trinity model works against that some. It misses the deep interpersonal aspect of God which the Trinity implies.

I wouldn't say Lee's concept is impersonal. It is very personal for liquid God to get inside us. It is more personal than thinking a relationship is about having an occasional chat with God. But Lee did put the focus more on the spirit, and I guess that is why you think it is impersonal. I think practically, relationships built on the spirit are stronger, deeper, longer lasting and not subject to waxing and waning emotions.

I think the relation between the persons of the Trinity is primarily a spiritual one than emotional. For example, God sent His only Son to die without any hesitation. Do you think He needed to ask someone for a box of tissues? I doubt it. Although the story does appeal to our human side ,considering a Father giving up His Son for us, I doubt that God was very emotional about it. Afterall ,God who can do anything knew he would just raise Him from the dead again. Abraham, also, did not seem too emotional about sacrificing Isaac, the Bible does not describe what sort of emotions he might have been feeling. Abraham had faith in God's power.

I believe Lee's focus on the spirit is helpful to countless Christians who doubt their salvation or their standing with God because they don't have warm fuzzy feelings. It is also helpful in matters of relationship with other people.

[Drake]

Igzy)"All the LCM sees about the Trinity is it is some sort of cascading aquaduct to pour liquid God stuff into us. Not very personal."

Igzy,

Quite the opposite. A brother once gave some messages on the two sons of oil in zechariah becoming channels to dispense God as liquid gold into us.The imagery showed me just how personal our God is with us and how personal we can be with each other in the work of God's building.

Never forgot it.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy)"All the LCM sees about the Trinity is it is some sort of cascading aquaduct to pour liquid God stuff into us. Not very personal."

Igzy,

Quite the opposite. A brother once gave some messages on the two sons of oil in zechariah becoming channels to dispense God as liquid gold into us.The imagery showed me just how personal our God is with us and how personal we can be with each other in the work of God's building.

Never forgot it.

Drake

"Just how personal" huh? I guess you've seen it all then and have nothing to learn from me.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

"Just how personal" huh? I guess you've seen it all then and have nothing to learn from me.

Igzy,

I learn from you but not in the same way as perhaps might be possible in a different setting. Mostly in this forum your characterizations do not match my experience. So we disagree a lot. And vice-versa I am sure. A forum is not conducive to have a conversation like we would face to face.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

I learn from you but not in the same way as perhaps might be possible in a different setting. Mostly in this forum your characterizations do not match my experience. So we disagree a lot. And vice-versa I am sure. A forum is not conducive to have a conversation like we would face to face.

Drake

I'm just trying to get you to a place where you are willing to admit Lee did not contain all the crucial truth and light you need. Of course, that's a tough assignment, even in the best setting.

Did you know Benson Phillips once said there is "nothing" outside of the LCM, meaning in Christianity, that anyone needs? That's a quote. I personally heard him say it. And I heard him say that kind of thing more than once. He didn't mean that there was no good in Christianity, he just meant if you had what the LCM has to offer you didn't need any of it. That kind of talk is just stupefying and I hope you can appreciate how difficult it is to talk to a group of people who tend to believe that kind of thing.

Ask yourself, Drake. Why did Benson say things like that? Because it was true? No, he did it to marry people to Lee and Lee alone.

Do you really think that is the way God goes about things? Raising up an obscure teacher and bestowing to him exclusively all the truth his people need to the point they do not need the teaching of any other, to the point of emboldening associates of the leader to say stuff like Benson says?

That's how God does things? Really?

That's just kooky. That's the kind of thing weird groups like Objectivists (Ayn Rand) believe, or the Mormons (Joseph Smith), or the Church Universal Triumphant (Elizabeth Clare Prophet) which a relative of mine once belonged to. Kooks all.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I think the relation between the persons of the Trinity is primarily a spiritual one than emotional. For example, God sent His only Son to die without any hesitation.

"Spiritual?" So you think being spiritual means being unemotional? Are you are a Christian or a Vulcan?

Seriously, there is nothing unholy about emotions controlled by the Spirit. Truly spiritual people are emotional people. They are full of feeling. Dead people are quite unemotional. Are you certain you aren't one of them?

Really, Evangelical. To be unemotional is to be impersonal. I think you have a mistaken view of spirituality. This is Lee's view. It's really a kind of Asian stoicism. It isn't New Testament truth. Strong emotions don't have to be fake or mauldin. It's not a matter of fuzzy feelings, it's a matter of being truly alive.

Again you are presenting the fallacy of the false alternative.

[aron]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I wouldn't say Lee's concept is impersonal. It is very personal for liquid God to get inside us. .

The "dispensing" (oikonomia) is about obedience. God gives (dispenses) then expects His agent to comply with His will in dispensing. See Jesus' parable where He uses this very word. It is translated "stewardship".

If I give a truck full of chickens to a driver, and tell him to deliver them to Fort Wayne, and the driver makes it half-way and then sells them by the roadside and buys a plane ticket to Acapulco, then the half-way obedience of the driver doesn't count. You can see this again and again in the NT. 1 Corinthians and Hebrews come specifically to mind. It's not about masticating the Processed and Consummated Triune God and becoming God in life and nature, but the economy of God is about continual obedience.

Only the Son can make this claim. "I come to do Thy will". The Father is love, but from Adam and Eve on down, His human agents failed. Only one Sent One, the Messiah or Christ, fulfilled the Father's will. And now our faith is not in ourselves but in Him. The obedience of the Christ becomes the foundation of our faith, and this faith is now reckoned as righteousness, and now the Son says, "Obey My commands, even as I have obeyed the Father".

Relations are built on behavior. Continual behavior. Not one thing one day and another thing the next. Teachers like Lee distracted us from our responsibility to obey the Son, with ideas of supercharged grace. "Merely eat God, and you will become God in life and nature." Get the liquid God poured into your human (God-shaped) vessel. Very little about obedience.