Lee's Trinity

[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 UntoHim

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.
-

For something to become something means a change must take place. A caterpillar becomes a butterfly. A frog becomes a prince. etc. "God became a man" means God changed.

The "be" prefix in English means "to turn into" or "make into".

e.g. to befriend somebody means to turn somebody into a friend. To beget something means to produce something. To "belong" means to make someone a part of something. To "believe" something means to make something beloved or dear to you.

[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

[Drake]

It is clear from colossians 2:9 that through incarnation the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus bodily. This was a change and one that never happened before incarnation. There can be no denying this was a change. Divinity entered humanity.

A second major change occurred in ascension. Humanity entered divinity. Economically.

The essential Trinity is unchanged from eternity past to eternity future but as pertains to God's interaction and actions with man there have been changes. Other marvelous changes included the inauguration of a God-man as the Head of a Body made up of all believers.

The New Testament is a record of all the wonderful changes our Triune God made, is making, and will make.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

It is clear from colossians 2:9 that through incarnation the fullness of the Godhead dwelt in Jesus bodily. This was a change and one that never happened before incarnation. There can be no denying this was a change. Divinity entered humanity.

You are right. Humanity changed. Or at least one human did. But God did not. The Son, before incarnation, had the fullness of the Godhead, therefore God did not change in this fact. The only change was to a single man.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

You are right. Humanity changed. Or at least one human did. But God did not. The Son, before incarnation, had the fullness of the Godhead, therefore God did not change in this fact. The only change was to a single man.

Yes! This was God"s work in incarnation. And it is wonderful!

Drake

[UntoHim]

What is clear is that our friend Drake is using the false dichotomy of the supposed "essential/economical" aspects of God as a not-so-veiled cover for Witness Lee's unscriptural, modalistic processed Triune God theology. Of course Igzy, as well as many of us former residents of Lee-Lee land, will never fall for this shell game....fool me once.....

There is a very good reason why one would be hard pressed to find any noted evangelical/orthodox scholar who subscribes to this essential/economical notion as a foundational basis in understanding the nature, character or even actions of God in the way that Witness Lee does. The reasons for this are quite simple - it just ain't there in the holy Scriptures. Oh, if ones twists, tweaks and massages the black and white letters and words, well then anything is possible...including that the three Persons of the Godhead become each other
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What is clear is that our friend Drake is using the false dichotomy of the supposed "essential/economical" aspects of God as a not-so-veiled cover for Witness Lee's unscriptural, modalistic processed Triune God theology. Of course Igzy, as well as many of us former residents of Lee-Lee land, will never fall for this shell game....fool me once.....

There is a very good reason why one would be hard pressed to find any noted evangelical/orthodox scholar who subscribes to this essential/economical notion as a foundational basis in understanding the nature, character or even actions of God the way that Witness Lee does. The reasons for this are quite simple - it just ain't there in the holy Scriptures. Oh, if ones twists, tweaks and massages the black and white letters and words, well then anything is possible...including that the three Persons of the Godhead become each other
-

Why do you say " supposed "essential/economical" aspects of God"?

You really have shown yourselves ignorant on matters of theology when you say "would be hard pressed to find any noted evangelical/orthodox scholar who subscribes to this essential/economical notion as a foundational basis in understanding the nature, character or even actions of God"

The "essential/economical" aspects of God are in theology known as the ontological Trinity and the economical Trinity and is basic foundational Christian doctrine. Perhaps if you spent more time reading theological resources you would know that.

See here:

https://carm.org/ontological-and-economic-trinity

https://www.gotquestions.org/ontological-Trinity.html

In their discussion of the Trinity, theologians have developed a number of terms to help explain, as precisely as possible, what God is like. When someone speaks of the “ontological Trinity,” also known as the “immanent Trinity,” it is in reference to the nature of God.

The ontological Trinity is also sometimes called the “essential Trinity.” It is often mentioned in conjunction with the “economic Trinity,” a term which focuses on the relationships within the Trinity and each Person’s role in creation and salvation. The term “ontological Trinity” focuses on who God is; the term “economic Trinity” focuses on what God does.

John 10:30 says that Jesus and the Father are one, by which it is meant that they are of one nature. In Matthew 28:19 Jesus tells us to baptize “in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit,” clearly equating the three Persons of the Godhead.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

What is clear is that our friend Drake is using the false dichotomy of the supposed "essential/economical" aspects of God as a not-so-veiled cover for Witness Lee's unscriptural, modalistic processed Triune God theology. Of course Igzy, as well as many of us former residents of Lee-Lee land, will never fall for this shell game....fool me once.....

There is a very good reason why one would be hard pressed to find any noted evangelical/orthodox scholar who subscribes to this essential/economical notion as a foundational basis in understanding the nature, character or even actions of God the way that Witness Lee does. The reasons for this are quite simple - it just ain't there in the holy Scriptures. Oh, if ones twists, tweaks and massages the black and white letters and words, well then anything is possible...including that the three Persons of the Godhead become each other
-

As Evangelical has clearly shown the essential or ontological Trinity and the economical Trinity are theological terms and concepts. They were not invented by Brother Lee. I believe I first read economical in Bunyan's works.

But let's not get hung up on terms. What term do you prefer to describe how divinity entered humanity in incarnation and how humanity entered divinity in ascension? If not "economical" then what term do you offer to describe our God's great doings?

Drake

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Drake

As Evangelical has clearly shown the essential or ontological Trinity and the economical Trinity are theological terms and concepts. They were not invented by Brother Lee. I believe I first read economical in Bunyan's works.

I never said they were invented by Witness Lee, only that he misused and misapplied them, as Lee was wont to do with many advanced theological terms and concepts. It doesn't take a theological scholar to quickly understand that Lee mixed and confused the two terms, and also misapplied them in a really weak attempt to affirm and justify his "processed Triune God" teachings, which have been tagged as at least slightly modalistic by more than one biblical teacher or scholar.

Of course Lee also taught a relatively orthodox/biblical version of the Trinity, sometimes in the very same page or paragraph! The problem is that he clearly "confounds the persons", thus scrambling the eggs as it were, then he quickly tries to unscramble them by popping out some orthodox/biblical speaking. Lee's attempts were, of course, in vain. Once you teach that "the Son and the Father are really not two separate persons", you have already confounded the persons...you've scrambled the eggs.

But let's not get hung up on terms. What term do you prefer to describe how divinity entered humanity in incarnation and how humanity entered divinity in ascension? If not "economical" then what term do you offer to describe our God's great doings?

Firstly, any of us are probably just as susceptible to scramble the eggs as Witness Lee, me included. But since you asked, I prefer to just stick with what is giving to us in the Bible - "And the Word became flesh". Amen! Thank you Father, the Word became flesh and even dwelt among us, full of grace and truth! I guess I'm just a simpleton, yokel who's satisfied with the basics.

As far as the rest of your concerns, I would point you to a genuine, bonafide, world renowned theologian, R.C. Sproul.

What’s the Difference between the Ontological and the Economic Trinity?

Do you know the meaning of the word Trinity? In all likelihood, most of those reading this are familiar with this word and its meaning in theology. But what if I were to ask you to distinguish between the “ontological Trinity” and the “economic Trinity”? If I said, “Please describe for me the difference between the ontological Trinity and the economic Trinity,” could you do it? The distinction is very important.

Ontology is the study of being. When we talk about the ontological Trinity, or as some theologians term it, the “immanent Trinity,” we are referring to the Trinity in itself, without regard to God’s works of creation and redemption. In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. The ontological structure of the Trinity is a unity (Deut. 6:4). When we speak of the economic Trinity, on the other hand, we are dealing with the activity of God and the roles of the three persons with regard to creation and redemption.

In terms of the ontological Trinity, the three persons are distinguished by what the Westminster Larger Catechism calls “their personal properties” (WLC 9). It then goes on to define these personal properties: “It is proper to the Father to beget the Son, and to the Son to be begotten of the Father, and to the Holy Ghost to proceed from the Father and the Son from all eternity” (WLC 10). With regard to the economic Trinity, we distinguish among the three persons of the Godhead in terms of their roles in creation and redemption. It is the Father who sends the Son into the world for our redemption. It is the Son who acquires our redemption for us. It is the Spirit who applies that redemption to us. We do not have three gods. We have one God in three persons, and the three persons are distinguished in the economy of redemption in terms of what They do.

In orthodox Christianity, we say that the Son is equal to the Father in power, in glory, and in being. This discussion rests heavily on John 1:1, where we read, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” This verse indicates that the Father and the Word (the Son) are different and are one. In one sense, the Son and the Father are identical. In another sense, They are distinguished. From all eternity, within the ontological Trinity, the Father begets the Son, and the Son is begotten of the Father. From all eternity, God also freely decrees the salvation of yet to be created human beings in what theologians refer to as the “covenant of redemption.” This covenant of redemption among the Persons of the Trinity is the eternal foundation for the work of the three Persons in the history of redemption. From all eternity the Father agrees to send the Son, and the Son is willingly sent. The Son doesn’t send the Father; the Father sends the Son. So even though the Father and the Son are equal in power, glory, and being, and even though there is no eternal subordination within the ontological Trinity, nevertheless there is a subordination of the Son to the Father in the economy of redemption.

That is what Jesus said in John 5:19–23. He declared: “I don’t do anything on My own. I do what the Father tells Me to do. I do what the Father sent Me to do. I watch the Father, and I do what the Father does. The Father is preeminent. The Father is the One to whom I am obedient and subordinate.” He even affirmed that He could not do anything of Himself, only what He saw the Father do. Out of His love for the Son, the Father showed Him all the things that He Himself did. Then Jesus stated that the Father would show Him even greater things, so they should expect His works to become greater. In this context, Jesus specifically mentioned the raising of the dead.

This excerpt is taken from R.C. Sproul’s commentary on John.
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by 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

See, that's what so weird. You are suggesting that at the moment you agree with Lee completely, or at least that you always give him the benefit of the doubt, which is bad enough.

A "normal" person would have just acknowledged that they probably don't agree on everything. No human deserves the amount of credulity LCMers give Lee, and God doesn't give brownie points for being a brown-noser.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

See, that's what so weird. You are suggesting that at the moment you agree with Lee completely, or at least that you always give him the benefit of the doubt, which is bad enough.

A "normal" person would have just acknowledged that they probably don't agree on everything. No human deserves the amount of credulity LCMers give Lee, and God doesn't give brownie points for being a brown-noser.

But by all accounts Witness Lee surely did.

[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."