Lee's Trinity

[Evangelical]

The Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

If is meant to imply merely moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should Christ's words have caused such fierce reaction?:

John 10:31 Then the Jews took up stones again to stone him.

[OBW]

Thanks Unto.

Just two paragraphs before the part you quoted comes this paragraph

The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are one God. First Peter 1:2 tells us that the Father is God; Hebrews 1:8 tells us that the Son is God; and Acts 5:3-4 tells us that the Spirit is God. If you read the Bible in a superficial way, you may believe that the Father, the Son, and the Spirit are three separate persons. But if you read even only the Gospel of John carefully, getting into the depth of the truth, you will see that the Son came in the Father’s name, He worked out the Father’s will, He worked the Father’s work with the Father and in the Father’s name, He spoke the Father’s word, and He sought the Father’s glory. If you touch the depth in the verses that cover these points, you will realize that the Son and the Father are one. You cannot separate them

Here is more of the typical Lee fantasizing. Let me paraphrase:

"Peter tells us the Father is God. Hebrews tells the Son is God. And Acts tells us the Spirit is God. . . . You will realize that the Son and the Father are one."

Genius. There is One God. How did we miss this???

Continuing: "You cannot separate them."

Really? While they are "one" they are also two. And they separated themselves very nicely, thank you. Jesus prays to the Father. He does the will of the Father. They look pretty separated to me.

Continuing with the beginning of the next paragraph. . . "Likewise, the Spirit is not separated from the Son. . . ."

A lot of talk after the three verses at the beginning of the first paragraph (that don't support the "they are one" theory) without a single verse. Just Lee's conjecture, or more like opinion, about what it must be despite nothing that supports his opinion. The only support found is that the Father, Son and Spirit are all God.

A few paragraphs later, he turns to John 4:24 "God is spirit." But he quotes it as "God is Spirit." John 4:24 does not comment on the whole of God being "the Spirit." Rather it comments on the nature of God as spirit. The fact of the nature does not cause all three to become one of them simply because that one has personified that word as his name. The Father is spirit, not The Spirit. The Son is spirit, but not The Spirit. The Spirit is spirit, and is also The Spirit (redundant?).

This is just a little of the scriptural mishandling performed by Lee in this one chapter of this one book. And it speaks volumes about the theological, logical, and spiritual incompetence of the man. He was never worthy of having any people following him to learn his understanding of the Bible. He didn't understand it. Or he was corrupt enough to bankrupt what he might know by turning out the pig food that this book provides. (And almost every other one I have taken the time to review)

The funny thing is that I do not have to go looking for places he goes wrong. Someone points to a quote or reference, or I simply start reading at a place and it is just there. I can't have just happened to have found the few really bad parts by bum luck. It has to be that full of garbage for the refuse of it to be found right where I start every time.

And every time that someone points to a particular place, I find it right there. Not pages later. Or somewhere else after exhausting the general vicinity where I started.

In this case, it is chapter 14 of The Divine Dispensing of the Divine Trinity. Messages given over several months in 1983. A good part of them in Irving where I lived at the time. I probably was there for at least some of them.

And yes, I was a willing participant at the time. But I was awakened from the stupor. Got some true "spiritual oxygen" to clear my from the garlic fog that I has lost in while there.

But Lee says it just like Charlie Brown commiserating about losing at baseball ("How can we lose when we're so sincere?"). In this case, the statement is "So they just have to be one, unable to be separated."

Really? On what basis? How is it that the God that made everything can't do it in a different way than you imagine?

Just a chapter earlier, Lee asks "God were only God, how could He enter into us?" How? Because he is God. That he is instead Three does not deny him any capabilities or attributes. Just changes how he operates. God does not have to be Triune, or Trinity. But he is. Why do we accept that Lee's near incredulity at the idea that they could be separated has any bearing on the subject? Where is the evidence? He constantly tells that X means Y, but never identifies how that is so.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity:

John 10:30 I and my Father are one.

False statements and fortune cookie proof-texting.

Yes, they are one essence.

Wrong. They are not one entity.

And we talk about humans being "one." They are not simply each other, so this verse cannot be simply understood as meaning that the Father and the Son are simply the same being (entity). That is a claim that the words do not support. And so much of the account in the scripture clearly contradicts.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

False statements and fortune cookie proof-texting.

Yes, they are one essence.

Wrong. They are not one entity.

And we talk about humans being "one." They are not simply each other, so this verse cannot be simply understood as meaning that the Father and the Son are simply the same being (entity). That is a claim that the words do not support. And so much of the account in the scripture clearly contradicts.

OBW,

It appears in your quest to disagree with Witness Lee as much as possible you are departing from orthodoxy. Of course, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one entity, one being.

Re-read UntoHim's R.C. Sproul clip.

" In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. "

Drake

[Drake]

OBW)" God does not have to be Triune, or Trinity. But he is"

True, but in the context of coming into us, or dispensing Himself into man, man must be a compatible receptacle. God must be triune and man must be tripartite. I think it was Igzy that said something along this line with different terms earlier in this thread.

Drake

[UntoHim]

You got us all wrong (again) Drake. Mike can speak for himself, but I can tell you that we are not on a "quest to disagree with Witness Lee as much as possible", rather we have found our way back to the orthodox, evangelical, historic Christian faith, which, when compared and contrasted to the teachings and practices of the Local Church, established by Lee himself, one finds many of them at odds with said Christian faith.

In short, it is Witness Lee and his followers who have decidedly departed from the historic Christian faith and orthodox teachings. Lee calls them "recovered truth", but they have recovered nothing but many of the ancient heresies of the first few centuries of the church. Turns out, thee is nothing new under the sun.
-

[Drake]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You got us all wrong (again) Drake. Mike can speak for himself, but I can tell you that we are not on a "quest to disagree with Witness Lee as much as possible", rather we have found our way back to the orthodox, evangelical, historic Christian faith, which, when compared and contrasted to the teachings and practices of the Local Church, established by Lee himself, one finds many of them at odds with said Christian faith.

In short, it is Witness Lee and his followers who have decidedly departed from the historic Christian faith and orthodox teachings. Lee calls them "recovered truth", but they have recovered nothing but many of the ancient heresies of the first few centuries of the church. Turns out, thee is nothing new under the sun.
-

The orthodox, evangelical, and historic Christian faith does not teach that God is more than one being!

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW,

It appears in your quest to disagree with Witness Lee as much as possible you are departing from orthodoxy. Of course, the Father, Son, and Spirit are one entity, one being.

Re-read UntoHim's R.C. Sproul clip.

" In the Trinity, there are three persons —the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit—who together are one being. "

Drake

Yet they are also three. Sproul (or "Pulpit") notwithstanding, the very use of the term "being," entity," or "person" as being exclusive domain of One or Three is the problem. You presume that the fact that he said this means that he thinks that they are simply one being and that the "three" side cannot be described in the same way or with the same term.

Now I admit that using the same term for the One and the Three is problematic (at least to us finite beings). But that does not mean that I, you, Sproul, or Lee has the wherewithal to say where the "being" is and where it is not.

I know that you don't like that creed. But it made more sense of the Trinity than the arguments over where "being" should be attributed. They are Three, not to be morphed into one. And they are One, not to be separated into Three. Both are true. Is there anywhere that the term "being" or "entity" should exclusively apply? We really don't know. But people like Lee demand that they have the answer and it is mostly opposite of what everyone else says.

You complain about us seeming to be going after Lee. Well it is more likely that the one who bucks the history of theology for his own personal ideas that he can't even substantiate with a scripture is the one who is wrong in the debate. You can't argue with that. Lee really doesn't provide any support for his "they are just one" theology. He just says it is true. Whole chapters of whole books doing just like that.

Then grossly misrepresenting the little scripture he really uses. Like "God is Spirit." It doesn't say that.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

Yet they are also three. Sproul (or "Pulpit") notwithstanding, the very use of the term "being," entity," or "person" as being exclusive domain of One or Three is the problem. You presume that the fact that he said this means that he thinks that they are simply one being and that the "three" side cannot be described in the same way or with the same term.

Now I admit that using the same term for the One and the Three is problematic (at least to us finite beings). But that does not mean that I, you, Sproul, or Lee has the wherewithal to say where the "being" is and where it is not.

I know that you don't like that creed. But it made more sense of the Trinity than the arguments over where "being" should be attributed. They are Three, not to be morphed into one. And they are One, not to be separated into Three. Both are true. Is there anywhere that the term "being" or "entity" should exclusively apply? We really don't know. But people like Lee demand that they have the answer and it is mostly opposite of what everyone else says.
.

OBW,

Tritheism is the belief that cosmic divinity is composed of three powerful entities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritheism

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

OBW,

Tritheism is the belief that cosmic divinity is composed of three powerful entities.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tritheism

Drake

But even though the God we serve is in Three (whether persons, or something else, the scripture is too clear that they are not simply each other), therefore it is not as simple as "if you say three then you are a tritheist."

Tritheism is the worship of three gods. We do not worship three gods. We worship One God that is in three "persons." We do not worship the three separately though we do acknowledge their unique attributes as described in the scripture. But they are not worshipped as separate beings to be separately appeased. Rather we worship One God who is a unified three. Therefore we "appease" only God, not the Spirit separately from the Son or the Father (and so on). (I realize that there is nothing that we do to appease God, but my point is to make a comparison between the worship of three who are three and three who are One.)

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

But even though the God se serve is in Three (whether persons, or something else, the scripture is too clear that they are not simply each other), therefore it is not as simple as "if you say three then you are a tritheist."

Tritheism is the worship of three gods. We doe not worship three gods. We worship One God that is in three "persons." We do not worship the three separately though we do acknowledge their unique attributes as described in the scripture. But they are not worshipped as separate beings to be separately appeased. Rather we worship One God who is a unified three. Therefore we "appease" only God, not the Spirit separately from the Son or the Father (and so on). (I realize that there is nothing that we do to appease God, but my point is to make a comparison between the worship of three who are three and three who are One.)

Well said.


Look at it this way, Drake. Everyone acknowledges that we are separate entities apart from God, as are the angels. We know that God created us to have relationships with us and so we could have relationships with each other. But how would God think to have a relationship with anyone else if the essence of relationship did not exist within him from the beginning? If there was not a initial, divine, only-begotten relationship within God before all, then you would have to conclude God had a terrible lack within himself to have to create the idea of relationship after the initial fact of himself. Thus this "lonely God" idea is deeply flawed.

Therefore, consensus says that the essence of Relationship--that is an actual, full relationship--existed within God from the beginning. This is the relationship between the Father and the Son. Jesus speaks of this in John 17:5 where he prays, "And now, Father, glorify me in your presence with the glory I had with you before the world began."

I believe the relationship of the Father and Son is in some way God's relationship with himself. But because he is God it is more than that. It is somehow also a relationship between two persons. Why otherwise would Jesus talk of the Father as if he was another person? Why would he bother to pray to him? It could not just be to set an example for us. It has to be there is an actual relationship going on.

Don't you see? God is so great that his relationship with himself 'blossomed' into something more, the relationship between two persons, which became the model for all other relationships, which we were created to have, and without which we would not have even been created.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by OBW

But even though the God we serve is in Three (whether persons, or something else, the scripture is too clear that they are not simply each other), therefore it is not as simple as "if you say three then you are a tritheist."

Tritheism is the worship of three gods. We do not worship three gods. We worship One God that is in three "persons." We do not worship the three separately though we do acknowledge their unique attributes as described in the scripture. But they are not worshipped as separate beings to be separately appeased. Rather we worship One God who is a unified three. Therefore we "appease" only God, not the Spirit separately from the Son or the Father (and so on). (I realize that there is nothing that we do to appease God, but my point is to make a comparison between the worship of three who are three and three who are One.)

OBW,

Had you said the above and stuck with it I would not have said you had veered into the ditch of tritheism . You said three entities or beings so you went too far. Three entities or beings is the ditch of tritheism. Three Persons could be the ditch of tritheism if by Persons you mean entities. If you say three Persons yet you maintain that God is one being then that is not the ditch but is the road, yet as soon as you start thinking three entities or beings you may be on the shoulder and when you say three entities or beings you are in the ditch. So "Persons" could go either way depending what you mean by it. Therefore, the conversation of Persons pivots on what you mean by it. Three beings is clearly the ditch.

Thanks
Drake

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

False statements and fortune cookie proof-texting.

Yes, they are one essence.

Wrong. They are not one entity.

And we talk about humans being "one." They are not simply each other, so this verse cannot be simply understood as meaning that the Father and the Son are simply the same being (entity). That is a claim that the words do not support. And so much of the account in the scripture clearly contradicts.

I actually quoted from Pulpit Commentary, almost word for word to see if someone would "take the bait", and you did!

Pulpit Commentary on John 10:30 says:
that the Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity. If be merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment?

The Pulpit Commentary is a homiletic commentary on the Bible created during the nineteenth century under the direction of Rev. Joseph S. Exell and Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones. It consists of 23 volumes with 22,000 pages and 95,000 entries, and was written over a 30 year period with 100 contributors. Rev. Joseph S. Exell M.A. served as the editor of Clerical World, The Homiletical Quarterly and the Monthly Interpreter. Exell was also the editor for several other large commentary sets like The Men of the Bible, The Preacher's Homiletic Library and The Biblical Illustrator. Henry Donald Maurice Spence-Jones was the Vicar and Rural Dean of St. Pancras, London and the principal of Gloucester Theological College.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pulpit_Commentary

It just proves that even if Drake or I post from reliable theological resources the "orthodox" position, you will still disagree with it possibly because you have departed from the orthodox position yourself, or do not understand what you are talking about.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

It just proves that even if Drake or I post from reliable theological resources the "orthodox" position, you will still disagree with it possibly because you have departed from the orthodox position yourself, or do not understand what you are talking about.

My dear brother you can quote from reliable theological resources 'till all the mooing cows come home, but if what Witness Lee taught doesn't come even close to what these sources say (and in many cases Lee teaches quite the opposite) then even when all your mooing cows do come home they won't have any legs to stand on. There was a very good reason Witness Lee attempted to steer his followers away from most theological teachers and scholars - he didn't want any of his followers to discover the blatant departure he had taken from "the faith once delivered to the saints". His story was that he had assimilated anything worth while and discarded the "bones and feathers". Some of you dear saints are still choking on them bones and feathers to this day...except that you don't call them bones and feathers, you call them "high peak truths".
-

[Nell]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My dear brother you can quote from reliable theological resources 'till all the mooing cows come home, but if what Witness Lee taught doesn't come even close to what these sources say (and in many cases Lee teaches quite the opposite) then even when all your mooing cows do come home they won't have any legs to stand on. There was a very good reason Witness Lee attempted to steer his followers away from most theological teachers and scholars - he didn't want any of his followers to discover the blatant departure he had taken from "the faith once delivered to the saints". His story was that he had assimilated anything worth while and discarded the "bones and feathers". Some of you dear saints are still choking on them bones and feathers to this day...except that you don't call them bones and feathers, you call them "high peak truths".
-

I call Lee's strategy a bunch of bull.

Sorry Unto but you left the gate open and I got hoof and mouth. Must have something to do with my location.

Nell

[UntoHim]

Ok Nell, ya got me again.

I guess what we should be asking these guys is....
WHERE'S THE BEEF???


*Apologies to all you youngins and non-Americans out there. Here's one of the "Where's the beef?"commercials for your viewing enjoyment:
Wendy's Where's The Beef Commercial
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

My dear brother you can quote from reliable theological resources 'till all the mooing cows come home, but if what Witness Lee taught doesn't come even close to what these sources say (and in many cases Lee teaches quite the opposite) then even when all your mooing cows do come home they won't have any legs to stand on. There was a very good reason Witness Lee attempted to steer his followers away from most theological teachers and scholars - he didn't want any of his followers to discover the blatant departure he had taken from "the faith once delivered to the saints". His story was that he had assimilated anything worth while and discarded the "bones and feathers". Some of you dear saints are still choking on them bones and feathers to this day...except that you don't call them bones and feathers, you call them "high peak truths".
-

Why are members of this forum rejecting the stock standard theological resources I am posting. If they truly are orthodox I should expect a hearty "amen". But they are even disagree with these. I am quoting them word for word. You seem to reject both Lee and "orthodox" theological resources at the same time. To me it seems you are somewhere still on the journey between Lee and "orthodoxy". I believe "the faith once delivered to the saints" does not include the Catholic or Orthodox dogmas of the 5th Century AD.

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Why are members of this forum rejecting the stock standard theological resources I am posting. If they truly are orthodox I should expect a hearty "amen". But they are even disagree with these. I am quoting them word for word. You seem to reject both Lee and "orthodox" theological resources at the same time. To me it seems you are somewhere still on the journey between Lee and "orthodoxy". I believe "the faith once delivered to the saints" does not include the Catholic or Orthodox dogmas of the 5th Century AD.

Since you asked, why do you and Drake reject and contradict 99% of everything we post? You imply that we are liars when we post what we have seen and heard first hand. Your attitude is frequently arrogant and condescending. You construct straw-man arguments and twist our posts into something we did not say. You write so much crapola that you cannot be taken seriously, even when quoting scripture. If you want respect, try showing some yourself.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Nell

Since you asked, why do you and Drake reject and contradict 99% of everything we post? You imply that we are liars when we post what we have seen and heard first hand. Your attitude is frequently arrogant and condescending. You construct straw-man arguments and twist our posts into something we did not say. You write so much crapola that you cannot be taken seriously, even when quoting scripture. If you want respect, try showing some yourself.

Nell

This is hilarious given what you wrote a few posts ago and contains more "crapola" than anyone else has written. Straw-man's are part and parcel of this sort of discussion - grow up and get over it. I'm not asking for respect, I'm questioning why people who say Lee was not a theologian don't know basic theology themselves.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Nell

Since you asked, why do you and Drake reject and contradict 99% of everything we post? You imply that we are liars when we post what we have seen and heard first hand. Your attitude is frequently arrogant and condescending. You construct straw-man arguments and twist our posts into something we did not say. You write so much crapola that you cannot be taken seriously, even when quoting scripture. If you want respect, try showing some yourself.

Nell

Nell,

My experience differs from most here. Do I not have the right to share that in this forum?

Yet, this conversation is about the definition of the Trinity, the orthodox teaching on it, and whether Witness Lee's teaching aligns with it. His teaching is orthodox but it is evident that some in this forum express tendencies toward the ditch of tritheism. Evangelical has done a service to us all by bringing in the views of several independent theologians to state the orthodox view. Regardless of your opinion of Witness Lee's teaching, everyone should care to understand the orthodox teaching.

I don't find fault with not understanding. We are all striving to understand. However, It is disconcerting when Christians purposely misrepresent Witness Lee's actual teaching in hopes to gain what only God knows.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I actually quoted from Pulpit Commentary, almost word for word to see if someone would "take the bait", and you did!

Quoting someone does not make it worthy of being a rock to stand on. You and others have been quoting Lee for years as if it is the third testament. And the sloppiness with which many speak when it comes to the Trinity is sometimes atrocious given the tenuous nature of the whole definition/doctrine anyway.

So I am not impressed that you managed to quote somebody that appeared to agree with you. (At least appeared that way when a single sentence is ripped from the pages.)

The problem is that neither Lee, nor Sproul, nor the writers of the Pulpit Commentary are scripture and their statements, even if carefully construed, constitute actual evidence. They can only be understood as support for something that is first found in the Bible. And you didn't start with the Bible, but with their statement. So you really don't have scriptural evidence of anything. You have a context-less statement that might not even be saying what you are claiming.

And if the "entity" that is being referenced is "God," then I would agree. If the entity is the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, then I doubt that he would be saying that and would argue that where you are taking his statement (solely with respect to the completeness of their unity, not the reality of their separateness) is not what he was saying.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

Quoting someone does not make it worthy of being a rock to stand on. You and others have been quoting Lee for years as if it is the third testament. And the sloppiness with which many speak when it comes to the Trinity is sometimes atrocious given the tenuous nature of the whole definition/doctrine anyway.

So I am not impressed that you managed to quote somebody that appeared to agree with you. (At least appeared that way when a single sentence is ripped from the pages.)

The problem is that neither Lee, nor Sproul, nor the writers of the Pulpit Commentary are scripture and their statements, even if carefully construed, constitute actual evidence. They can only be understood as support for something that is first found in the Bible. And you didn't start with the Bible, but with their statement. So you really don't have scriptural evidence of anything. You have a context-less statement that might not even be saying what you are claiming.

And if the "entity" that is being referenced is "God," then I would agree. If the entity is the Father, the Son, or the Spirit, then I doubt that he would be saying that and would argue that where you are taking his statement (solely with respect to the completeness of their unity, not the reality of their separateness) is not what he was saying.

What do you mean "didn't start with the Bible, but with their statement"?

I posted both the bible verse and the commentary. You were fooled into thinking it was from Lee when it was not, it was from Pulpit commentary. This proves that you don't know the difference.

My post stated clearly that it was one entity in Personality. The Father's and the Son's Personality is the same.

I first found the verse, John 10:30 "I and the Father are one". I then read the commentary. I posted both.

The irony is you reject Lee and say he is not a theologian. Yet when I do post from stock standard theological resources you reject these as well.

Most of the time on this forum I don't even have to quote Lee to refute what I say. I just quote gotquestions or CARM or the commentaries from Biblehub.

Like I said you are just arguing against anything that Drake or I post.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

What do you mean "didn't start with the Bible, but with their statement"?

I posted both the bible verse and the commentary. You were fooled into thinking it was from Lee when it was not, it was from Pulpit commentary. This proves that you don't know the difference.

"Didn't start from the Bible means that you did not take a verse and use it to make a reasonable statement. Rather, it would appear that you went shopping for statements that met with your criteria.

And as I mentioned yesterday, just finding a word is not the same as finding something that agrees with you. You provided entirely too little of the commentary to establish that it was in any way suggesting that by putting the word "entity" in with respect to the unity of God that it was denying the separateness. This had been a common problem that I have seen. When people get talking about things like the Trinity where the language is not truly sufficient to describe what is revealed, the terminology starts to step on itself. We call the Three "persons" yet recognize that there is something more One about them than three entirely separate persons could ever be. At least as far as we understand the ability for separate persons to be one.

So we end out effectively using the same word to describe the Three and the One. We write songs that speak of "God in three persons" yet refer to "them" in the singular. The God in three persons is a "thee," not a "you guys."

And you want to hang your hat on the use of a word in describing what we all admit that is not truly defined anywhere.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

My post stated clearly that it was one entity in Personality. The Father's and the Son's Personality is the same.

Not saying there isn't truth in this, but where does it say this? Or is this a presumption because they are "one" or because someone else (Lee or any other commentator) ever said something like it.

Please note that I am skeptical of the value of the illusion of precision in the speaking of anyone, including the most revered theologians of any era, when it comes to adding definition to the Trinity beyond what the Bible says (which is nearly nothing).

Originally Posted by Evangelical

I first found the verse, John 10:30 "I and the Father are one". I then read the commentary. I posted both.

So you found a verse a propped up someone's comments beside it? Was the commentator actually referring to that verse (you didn't say that I can see)? Was this the whole of his comments? One-liners are too subject to misinterpretation.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

The irony is you reject Lee and say he is not a theologian. Yet when I do post from stock standard theological resources you reject these as well.

While I have already provided by take on statements concerning the nature of the Trinity, I will restate it here. There is a lot of "slop" in any viable definition of the Trinity. It is not because God is sloppy, or that we are just being sloppy. It is that there is insufficient evidence to go beyond some very high-level statements. Trying to be more specific than that is to make statements for which there is no sound support. Plenty of supposition. And those that want to see it one way v the other (either way) will tend to be swayed in the way they want to go, but without solid ground for it.

The result is a significant band of understanding that is neither all in agreement, nor clearly wrong. And as long as we understand that we don't understand — at make the effort to keep the differences from standing in the way of meaningful study of scripture and fellowship among believers — we can move forward together.

But once you start labeling everyone else in terms of types of heresy, then you have created your own problem. And when your version of what is right is so close to the acceptable extremes — even apparently over the line in some ways — then there is something to be said about your theology. When you teach your members to feel superior because they hold a somewhat unique position and look down your noses at those who disagree, calling them some kind of heretic (like tritheist), then you have likely moved outside of the norm.

You like to take a sentence from one writer and declare that because he used terms the way you would, you are orthodox. But you don't look at the whole of his work. Just the sentence. So you do not actually present his view. Just enough of it to be subject to misapplication or misattribution.

I am faced with scripture that describes God in ways that do not align with rational analysis. He (singular) is three — Father, Son, and Spirit — yet he is One God. I could argue a simple committee, but that would be insufficient because committees are never "One." They are always "by committee" and therefore the lowest common denominator. God is not the lowest common denominator between three separate beings. He is full-on God at the extremes, yet in three.

How far do we understand the "person/being/entity" side of this? Hard to say. But I would suggest that to say that all the ink given to the separate references requires a different approach than "they are just each other" as Lee has, in so many words, said. If they are just each other, then are there really three? Can you actually make the argument that there is a Son that became man that is anything other than the whole of God? And if that is how you want to make it, then isn't praying to the Father just a ruse to impress the disciples and others?

Obviously even you don't believe that kind of singleness. Yet you want to make the singleness so strong that much of the ink spent (and inspiration provided by the Spirit to) the human writers was effectively a waste. It really doesn't mean what it says.

How can we be one as the Father and Son are one if they are simply each other? (Well, maybe that is why Lee had to go with that "God in life and nature but not Godhead" teaching. Even he saw the problem with such an extreme dismissal of the Three.)

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Like I said you are just arguing against anything that Drake or I post.

And you have a post within the last 48 hours from me to nullify that statement.

But as long as you do not provide actual support for your positions, you will get push-back. Single verses are poor support, if any.

And Nee or Lee are not authorities in this forum. If you intend to make an un-credited statement, the it is assumed to be either your own (and we have a pretty good idea where you learned what you speak) or that of Nee or Lee. It is a reasonable assumption. So slipping in an un-credited quote from some other writer is pointless. We have no basis to accept it as either sound or correctly quoted. And without significant reference, we can't even tell if you have provided the statement such that it actually says what the writer was trying to say. One-liners just have that kind of problem. For example, "the last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit" cannot be understood as having any reference to the Holy Spirit if the context of the entire discussion is included. But in isolation, it is ripe for misleading and mishandling. And Lee did one or the other (or both). But he did not deal with what the verse said, rather with something it could have said if it had been part of a different discussion.

[OBW]

I had a few moments and went hunting for the Pulpit Commentary. First, I looked for Rawlinson and discovered that he was only one of many contributors. And when I go to the portion that you quoted, it is not evident (from the source I found) who specifically wrote it.

But I will accept that you at least have a source that does give that attribution.

When I read the whole passage, I find a sea of flowing back and forth between the separateness of the Father and the Son, and the idea that they are sort of a unity that we are incapable of being. And this is exactly what I would expect from any kind of grappling with the incomplete descriptions of the Father and the Son and their Oneness as God.

I say incomplete because none of the descriptions were intended to provide sufficient details to answer the question that we are grappling with here.

But after reading all of it, I see someone who has pondered so many possibilities and then makes this one statement as follows:

He bases the claim on the fact that the Father's hands are behind his, and that the Father's eternal power and Godhead sustain his mediatorial functions and, more than all, that the Father's Personality and his own Personality are merged in one essence and entity.

This is at least partly nothing more than spiritual-sounding fluff. Not saying it is bad analogy. But it is statements as if fact that are not supported by anything other than the fact that they are said in this sentence. And I do note that it ends with the word "entity." Yet that fact is not supported as simply true by even all that he has said (in the rest of the write-up on the verse). And given that lack of support (at least at the level of meaning you presume) it would seem from the context that using the word was not intended to negate the separateness of the Godhead, but rather to indicate that in their unity a singleness of "entity" might be a reasonable statement.

But that is not a singleness of entity in all aspects. Just a singleness of entity in the sense of God being One.

This sentence is immediately followed by the last sentence in the comment:

If he merely meant to imply moral and spiritual union with the Father, or completeness of revelation of the Divine mind, why should the utterance have provoked such fierce resentment?

And the answer is simple. Jesus effectively stated that he was God. And unless you were already fully behind that idea, to say that to a Jew was to utter blasphemy. Of course they were going to start gathering stones.

And Jesus was/is God. It doesn't matter whether you think of it in terms of a single being in modes, like a modalist, or as three separate gods of the true tritheist. Jesus was claiming to be God. That would rile up a good Jew. So the question raised really does not provide any clarity on the subject.

And after reading the statement provided, if it is truly attributable to George Rawlinson, it might reasonably explain how he was so prolific in so many arenas of writing and study, including being a theologian. Maybe he wasn't as strong a theologian as you might want on your committee. Not saying this as a certainty. But definitely questioning whether it might be true.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by OBW

"Didn't start from the Bible means that you did not take a verse and use it to make a reasonable statement. Rather, it would appear that you went shopping for statements that met with your criteria.

I literally went to biblehub.com to find the verse, then read the commentary. Not the other way around.

I believe a reasonable statement for a person who hears or reads John 10:30 and has no knowledge of the Trinity or bible commentaries is that "the Father and Jesus are one Person". This reasonableness is evident by the Jew's reaction to Christ's words. The Jews had no concept of the Trinity. Let's use their reaction as the best example of a reasonable (though fallen, human) understanding of Christ's words. Jesus had just told them that he is the Father, by saying "I and the Father are one". They heard "I am God, I am the same as God, I am the Father". That's why they wanted to kill Him. I am confident that the Jews were not stoning Jesus because he said "I am co-equal with the Father but am not the Father but the Son". Notice that in John 10:33 it says:"....because that thou, being a man, makest thyself God.". Jesus "called Himself God" by saying "I and the Father are one".
Jesus did it again when he called Himself "I AM".

Take away the Creeds and the Trinitarian dogma it is hard to argue from the bible alone that for Jesus to say he is one with the Father does not mean he is the Father. Christ's Fatherly nature is also evident in Matthew 23:37 when he calls the people "children". Also in Matthew 23:37 when he describes himself like a motherly hen.

What the Pulpit commentary is saying - is that the Scripture truly does say Jesus is the Father because the Trinity has not yet been revealed. Now that the Trinity has been revealed, it is a "sin" to say that "Jesus is the Father". So the difference in interpretation is whether or not we have been indoctrinated by the Trinity doctrine. I do not think it is a "sin" to say that Jesus is the Father because the Scripture says, and the Jews understood so, and Christ did not correct them.

Originally Posted by OBW

And as I mentioned yesterday, just finding a word is not the same as finding something that agrees with you. You provided entirely too little of the commentary to establish that it was in any way suggesting that by putting the word "entity" in with respect to the unity of God that it was denying the separateness. This had been a common problem that I have seen. When people get talking about things like the Trinity where the language is not truly sufficient to describe what is revealed, the terminology starts to step on itself. We call the Three "persons" yet recognize that there is something more One about them than three entirely separate persons could ever be. At least as far as we understand the ability for separate persons to be one.

So we end out effectively using the same word to describe the Three and the One. We write songs that speak of "God in three persons" yet refer to "them" in the singular. The God in three persons is a "thee," not a "you guys."

And you want to hang your hat on the use of a word in describing what we all admit that is not truly defined anywhere.
Not saying there isn't truth in this, but where does it say this? Or is this a presumption because they are "one" or because someone else (Lee or any other commentator) ever said something like it.

Please note that I am skeptical of the value of the illusion of precision in the speaking of anyone, including the most revered theologians of any era, when it comes to adding definition to the Trinity beyond what the Bible says (which is nearly nothing).

So you found a verse a propped up someone's comments beside it? Was the commentator actually referring to that verse (you didn't say that I can see)? Was this the whole of his comments? One-liners are too subject to misinterpretation.

While I have already provided by take on statements concerning the nature of the Trinity, I will restate it here. There is a lot of "slop" in any viable definition of the Trinity. It is not because God is sloppy, or that we are just being sloppy. It is that there is insufficient evidence to go beyond some very high-level statements. Trying to be more specific than that is to make statements for which there is no sound support. Plenty of supposition. And those that want to see it one way v the other (either way) will tend to be swayed in the way they want to go, but without solid ground for it.

The result is a significant band of understanding that is neither all in agreement, nor clearly wrong. And as long as we understand that we don't understand — at make the effort to keep the differences from standing in the way of meaningful study of scripture and fellowship among believers — we can move forward together.

But once you start labeling everyone else in terms of types of heresy, then you have created your own problem. And when your version of what is right is so close to the acceptable extremes — even apparently over the line in some ways — then there is something to be said about your theology. When you teach your members to feel superior because they hold a somewhat unique position and look down your noses at those who disagree, calling them some kind of heretic (like tritheist), then you have likely moved outside of the norm.

You like to take a sentence from one writer and declare that because he used terms the way you would, you are orthodox. But you don't look at the whole of his work. Just the sentence. So you do not actually present his view. Just enough of it to be subject to misapplication or misattribution.

I am faced with scripture that describes God in ways that do not align with rational analysis. He (singular) is three — Father, Son, and Spirit — yet he is One God. I could argue a simple committee, but that would be insufficient because committees are never "One." They are always "by committee" and therefore the lowest common denominator. God is not the lowest common denominator between three separate beings. He is full-on God at the extremes, yet in three.

How far do we understand the "person/being/entity" side of this? Hard to say. But I would suggest that to say that all the ink given to the separate references requires a different approach than "they are just each other" as Lee has, in so many words, said. If they are just each other, then are there really three? Can you actually make the argument that there is a Son that became man that is anything other than the whole of God? And if that is how you want to make it, then isn't praying to the Father just a ruse to impress the disciples and others?

Obviously even you don't believe that kind of singleness. Yet you want to make the singleness so strong that much of the ink spent (and inspiration provided by the Spirit to) the human writers was effectively a waste. It really doesn't mean what it says.

How can we be one as the Father and Son are one if they are simply each other? (Well, maybe that is why Lee had to go with that "God in life and nature but not Godhead" teaching. Even he saw the problem with such an extreme dismissal of the Three.)

And you have a post within the last 48 hours from me to nullify that statement.

But as long as you do not provide actual support for your positions, you will get push-back. Single verses are poor support, if any.

And Nee or Lee are not authorities in this forum. If you intend to make an un-credited statement, the it is assumed to be either your own (and we have a pretty good idea where you learned what you speak) or that of Nee or Lee. It is a reasonable assumption. So slipping in an un-credited quote from some other writer is pointless. We have no basis to accept it as either sound or correctly quoted. And without significant reference, we can't even tell if you have provided the statement such that it actually says what the writer was trying to say. One-liners just have that kind of problem. For example, "the last Adam [became] a life-giving spirit" cannot be understood as having any reference to the Holy Spirit if the context of the entire discussion is included. But in isolation, it is ripe for misleading and mishandling. And Lee did one or the other (or both). But he did not deal with what the verse said, rather with something it could have said if it had been part of a different discussion.

But from where I stand it is the same tactic employed against Lee. Lee is frequently misunderstood to be a modalist by taking one or two of his statements out of the whole context of his chapter or book. He may simply be emphasizing the "oneness" of the Trinity. Any orthodox theologian can easily be misunderstood to be modalist on the subject of the Trinity. As Augustine said, it was hard for him to not appear a modalist. The reason for this is that the Trinity doctrine itself is illogical. To make 1+1+1 = 1 work, we have to do some adjusting. We cannot fit a square peg in a round hole. Something must give, either we can make the square smaller or the hole bigger. It is the same with the Trinity, either we lean to the ditch of modalism, or the ditch of tritheism, to make it logical for us. Or we simply accept the caveat that "it is a mystery".