Lee's Trinity

[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.

[UntoHim]

From reading the last number of posts over the past few days, I am reminded of the real heart of the matter when it comes to "Lee's Trinity". The real problem, such as it is, is that Witness Lee put the emphasis on God changing - God needing to change, rather than the great and undeniable need for change in his fallen creation. This is not an accurate or complete reflection of what is presented to us in the Word of God.

God was always light - this is why he could proclaim "let there by light!" It was us, even the chosen, who "loved the darkness rather than the light because their works were evil". (John 3:19) God was always love - this is why the apostle John could proclaim "God is Love" (1 John 4:8) It is man, from the beginning, who fell into darkness and needed to get back to the light. It is man, from the beginning who fell under the deception of the devil and became one who "hates his brother and is in the darkness and walks in the darkness"

In the story of the "prodigal son", it was not the Father who changed - the Father was always there. The Father was there when the son left the safety and love of the Father's house. The Father was there while the son was squandering away all the Father's wealth. The Father was there waiting for his son to repent and come to his senses. The Father was there waiting when the son finally did repent and come to his senses. The son came back in humble repentance and expected to be treated as one of the hired servants. What the son didn't realize is that the Father had never changed - He was always the Father - His Father in the house of the Father, all along. It was the son who changed. It was the son who changed his position as a son of the wealthy Father. It was the son who left the love, mercy, grace and security provided by the Father and his house. It was the son who needed to change - Change his position (from his wondering in a foreign land) and change his attitude (as being a hired servant to a beloved son)

Witness Lee taught that God was "processed", or went through some process as it were. (what part of change did we not understand??) The first change was that of the Father becoming the Son. Using the Old Testament prophesy of Isaiah 9:6, and ignoring centuries of accepted orthodox biblical theology and hermeneutical standard, Lee wondered aloud "If the Son is called the Father, he must be the Father!". Once one concedes to " confounding the persons and dividing the substance", the floodgates open wide for all manner of aberrational and even heretical notions. The confounding of the persons continued with Lee's declaration that "This Christ...became a life-giving Spirit". Again, Lee questioned aloud before his captive audience "can there be two life-giving Spirits?". This is where Lee's lack of formal theological and linguistic education failed him (and by extension his followers), and the consequences were devastating.

Of course the debate about the orthodoxy, and lack thereof, of Witness Lee's "processed Triune God" will (and should) rage on in this forum. However, in my view, if we can't agree upon this basic, fundamental, foundational principle that it is fallen man who is in need of change, and not the One who declared "For I am the Lord, I change not" (Malachi 3:6), then I fear we will be treading water for the foreseeable future. Of course this beats the alternative of not entering into honest, open dialogue. May the Lord extend to all concerned a spirit of wisdom and revelation in the knowledge of him.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

From reading the last number of posts over the past few days, I am reminded of the real heart of the matter when it comes to "Lee's Trinity". The real problem, such as it is, is that Witness Lee put the emphasis on God changing - God needing to change, rather than the great and undeniable need for change in his fallen creation...

Disagree, I think you are wrong. Both God and man went (or will go through) a change. Christianity itself is based upon a belief that God changed - "God became a man". S. Lewis (quoting an early church person) said it best: "The Son of God became a man that men might become sons of God.". We could rephrase that to say - "God changed so that we might change".

I like your approach to focus on the core matter. But it's possible you are making the same mistake that Jews or Muslims take, and some Christians. They don't believe God changes or becomes anything - not human, not rock, not animal, not "another god". etc. They take the Old Testament and use it to disprove the New Testament. For example, they say because the Old Testament says "God is One", then God cannot be Trinity. They also say "God does not have sons", so Jesus cannot be His Son. And now you are saying, "God does not change", therefore God cannot change. But the Revelation of the New Testament turns that logic on its head. The Jewish converts themselves had to re-think their concept of God - he was now a Trinity, he had a Son, and this is God in the flesh - God became human.

One key change or process that God went through was that humanity was added to divinity. Before Jesus, God had no human element. After Jesus, God has a human element. Everyone might accept that Christ was fully God, divine, before His birth.

But do we believe that Christ is now fully God *and* fully human, not creating a third substance, and not being two persons but one person?

Christ was God, fully divine, Christ became human, a God-man. Now, Christ, who is God, is fully God and fully human. God went through a process, a change - God changed.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Christ was God, fully divine, Christ became human, a God-man. Now, Christ, who is God, is fully God and fully human. God went through a process, a change - God changed.

Technically, yes, but not substantially. At the most God put himself in position to experience things in a way he could not have otherwise. But taking on the nature of man did not cause a change to his nature. I believe this is because the nature of man was made to comfortably contain the nature of God.

[OBW]

I will be the first to declare that the simple statement "God never changes" is not so simple. Where it is found in scripture has a context. "Yesterday, today, and forever . . . " is not an absolute, context-less statement. God changed his mind several times. And was talked-down from a course of action on more than one occasion (one that he had the right to take).

But saying that does not open God up for presumptions of changes that are not actually stated or supported by the scripture.

The Father did not "become" the Son. The Son did not "become" the Spirit. I'm getting tired of people like Drake and Evangelical trotting out the same miss-readings of scripture and not even acknowledging the holes in their logic. And the prior understanding tends to dismiss their errors as just that — error. All of these errors by the accountant and the child prodigy are evidence that real theologians (and a lot of them) need to be part of any discussion that pretends to change the understanding of the scripture and of God. Especially after 1,900 years. If it is "new" it is almost certainly not valid. Instead, it is more likely a system of error.

I could argue the same for dispensational theology. I grew up in, and still "live" within a dispensational way of dealing with scripture. But because of its relative newness, and its questionable source, I have a hard time being a very good dispensationalist. Evangelical? Generally "yes." Dispensational? Not so much.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

CS. Lewis (quoting an early church person) said it best: "The Son of God became a man that men might become sons of God.". We could rephrase that to say - "God changed so that we might change".

Actually, CS Lewis was a scholar of the English language, and if he wanted to say "God changes" he would have said God changes. That aside, he was admittedly a lay theologian, loosely paraphrasing from a number of fallible ancient sources, and not the infallible Word of God.

They take the Old Testament and use it to disprove the New Testament.

Interesting you should bring this up. It was Witness Lee who attempted to use an Old Testament prophesy, which was a really poor way to confirm/affirm a very questionable New Testament theological thesis, as a proof text for his modalistic teaching that the Father became the Son. Again, this showed Lee's decidedly ignorant and amateurish approach to biblical theology. If historical Christianity's teachings regarding the Trinity "border on tritheism", then Witness Lee's teachings certainly border on rank modalism.

One key change or process that God went through was that humanity was added to divinity. Before Jesus, God had no human element. After Jesus, God has a human element. Everyone might accept that Christ was fully God, divine, before His birth.

"Mingle, mingle, hallelujah!" "God mingled with humanity lives in me, my all to be". Yes I remember all too well. To say that "humanity was added to divinity" is not an accurate way to speak of the incarnation, in my opinion. The term "added" smacks way to much of the notion that God was missing or insufficient in one sense or another. Also, I would note that this term "mingle" is not an term or notion used by many noted theologians and scholars through the years, and the main reason for their lack of employing such terms as "mingle" is that such terms imply a change in God himself - again a notion which is foreign to Scripture when taken as "the whole council of God".

Thanks for your thoughtful response.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Technically, yes, but not substantially. At the most God put himself in position to experience things in a way he could not have otherwise. But taking on the nature of man did not cause a change to his nature. I believe this is because the nature of man was made to comfortably contain the nature of God.

The change that occurred was the divine and human natures coming together to produce a third entity, Jesus Christ who is fully God. God's nature did not change, we agree with that. There are two clear, distinct natures, divine and human, that are not confused or blended together to produce a third nature.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Technically, yes, but not substantially. At the most God put himself in position to experience things in a way he could not have otherwise. But taking on the nature of man did not cause a change to his nature. I believe this is because the nature of man was made to comfortably contain the nature of God.

Igzy,

The distinction you are trying to define is similar to that which brother Lee made. He used the essential Trinity where you call it substantially. Your last sentence begins to poke at whar Brother Lee referred to as God"s actions with man, or the economical Trinity.

Drake

[Drake]

Igzy)"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. "

Igzy,

If that is your purpose then no wonder you are so frequentky frustrated with me!

I will give you a clue about me that may help.

Present an alternative view that is compelling from the Scriptures and in so doing accurately represent what Brother Lee taught and how it differs. If it is convincing then I will change my view.

My views evolve through light from the Scriptures, the Lord's speaking, and experiences of Christ.., usually some combination.

Drake

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

Igzy,

The distinction you are trying to define is similar to that which brother Lee made. He used the essential Trinity where you call it substantially. Your last sentence begins to poke at whar Brother Lee referred to as God"s actions with man, or the economical Trinity.

Drake

So I guess the question is what is meant by "change"?

If you mean God experienced new things, this is true.

If you mean that changed him fundamentally, I would say no.

But the interesting thing about experience is you've either had it or you haven't. This is true even for God. So though God knew what the experience would be like he hadn't actually had it until he had it.

I don't know enough to know what exactly this difference would be like to God. What is the internal cognitive difference between to fully understand what something would be like to experience and to actually experience it?

So of these ideas are just over our heads?

One of my favorite LCD members and LCM sympathizer, SpeakersCorner, who is missed, once said that God "needed" us to know what it was like to be weak. That idea has grown on me and I think it is confirmed by Scripture, for example when it says that Jesus had to "learn obedience."