Lee's Trinity

[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

[Nell]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

Drake,

You have the right to "share". So do we.

Our experience is different from yours. We have the right to share our experiences. We also have the right to rebut what is contrary to our beliefs and experience. I believe that's what this forum is about.

With all due respect to Evangelical's hard work, the orthodox teachings on the trinity are not "orthodox" because someone does some research and declares said teachings to be "orthodox." We don't look to any man as an authoritative source. Neither do we look to ourselves. In all matters, we look to God.

At best, opinions and teachings are based on the interpretation of Scripture by fallen men. We pray for enlightenment by the Holy Spirit and look for the same in anything we read written by men. We accept or reject based on the Lord's leading.

I believe that purposely misrepresenting other posters on this forum is also disconcerting.

Nell

[Evangelical]

Isaiah 9:6
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Most Christians when they read this verse accept Jesus being Wonderful, Counseller, mighty God, and Prince of Peace. But they reject "everlasting Father" and say "it means Jesus is like a father, He is not the Father". Why? Because they are following the traditions of man, they are taught to believe that. They did not come to that revelation through private study of scripture or the Spirit's revelation. They are being "extra-biblical" in the sense of not believing what the bible plainly says.

Although there are a number of theologians who take that view that Father means "father", or "Father", not all do.

The Pulpit Commentary by Dr. George Rawlinson on Isaiah 9:6 affirms that there is only one "Everlasting Father" -

The Everlasting Father; rather, Everlasting or Eternal Father. But here, again, there is a singularity in the idea, which makes the omission of the article unimportant; for how could there be more than one Everlasting Father, one Creator, Preserver, Protector of mankind who was absolutely eternal?[If the term “Father,” applied to our Lord grates our ears, we must remember that the distinctions of Persons in the Godhead has not yet been revealed.

The commentary seems to be saying that the verse does truly say that Jesus is the Everlasting Father from eternity because the doctrine of the Trinity was not yet clearly established. However by the time of the New Testament and after, the distinctions of Persons in the Godhead were revealed, and hence comes the doctrine that Jesus is *not* the Father. If it is acceptable for the Old Testament to say Jesus is the Father I do not see how it could be a problem to say Jesus is the Father in the new Testament. Afterall the Old is just as much Scripture as the New testament.

Now for some light hearted humor:

Jesus said, Whom do men say that I am?

And his disciples answered and said, Some say you are John the Baptist returned from the dead; others say Elias, or other of the old prophets.

And Jesus answered and said, But whom do you say that I am?

And Peter answered,

Quicumque vult salvus esse, ante omnia opus est, ut teneat catholicam fidem: Quam nisi quisque integram inviolatamque servaverit, absque dubio in aeternum peribit. Fides autem catholica haec est: ut unum Deum in Trinitate, et Trinitatem in unitate veneremur. Neque confundentes personas, neque substantiam separantes. Alia est enim persona Patris alia Filii, alia Spiritus Sancti: Sed Patris, et Filii, et Spiritus Sancti una est divinitas, aequalis gloria, coeterna maiestas. Qualis Pater, talis Filius, talis [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Increatus Pater, increatus Filius, increatus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Immensus Pater, immensus Filius, immensus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Aeternus Pater, aeternus Filius, aeternus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres aeterni, sed unus aeternus. Sicut non tres increati, nec tres immensi, sed unus increatus, et unus immensus. Similiter omnipotens Pater, omnipotens Filius, omnipotens [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres omnipotentes, sed unus omnipotens. Ita Deus Pater, Deus Filius, Deus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres dii, sed unus est Deus. Ita Dominus Pater, Dominus Filius, Dominus [et] Spiritus Sanctus. Et tamen non tres Domini, sed unus [est] Dominus. Quia, sicut singillatim unamquamque personam Deum ac Dominum confiteri christiana veritate compellimur: Ita tres Deos aut [tres] Dominos dicere catholica religione prohibemur. Pater a nullo est factus: nec creatus, nec genitus. Filius a Patre solo est: non factus, nec creatus, sed genitus. Spiritus Sanctus a Patre et Filio: non factus, nec creatus, nec genitus, sed procedens. Unus ergo Pater, non tres Patres: unus Filius, non tres Filii: unus Spiritus Sanctus, non tres Spiritus Sancti. Et in hac Trinitate nihil prius aut posterius, nihil maius aut minus: Sed totae tres personae coaeternae sibi sunt et coaequales. Ita, ut per omnia, sicut iam supra dictum est, et unitas in Trinitate, et Trinitas in unitate veneranda sit. Qui vult ergo salvus esse, ita de Trinitate sentiat.
Sed necessarium est ad aeternam salutem, ut incarnationem quoque Domini nostri Iesu Christi fideliter credat. Est ergo fides recta ut credamus et confiteamur, quia Dominus noster Iesus Christus, Dei Filius, Deus [pariter] et homo est. Deus [est] ex substantia Patris ante saecula genitus: et homo est ex substantia matris in saeculo natus. Perfectus Deus, perfectus homo: ex anima rationali et humana carne subsistens. Aequalis Patri secundum divinitatem: minor Patre secundum humanitatem. Qui licet Deus sit et homo, non duo tamen, sed unus est Christus. Unus autem non conversione divinitatis in carnem, sed assumptione humanitatis in Deum. Unus omnino, non confusione substantiae, sed unitate personae. Nam sicut anima rationalis et caro unus est homo: ita Deus et homo unus est Christus. Qui passus est pro salute nostra: descendit ad inferos: tertia die resurrexit a mortuis. Ascendit ad [in] caelos, sedet ad dexteram [Dei] Patris [omnipotentis]. Inde venturus [est] judicare vivos et mortuos. Ad cujus adventum omnes homines resurgere habent cum corporibus suis; Et reddituri sunt de factis propriis rationem. Et qui bona egerunt, ibunt in vitam aeternam: qui vero mala, in ignem aeternum. Haec est fides catholica, quam nisi quisque fideliter firmiterque crediderit, salvus esse non poterit.

And answering, Jesus said, "What?"

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Drake

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

Drake,

We could just as easily say you have tendencies toward the ditch of modalism. But let's not go there, okay?

Let's be honest, God presents us with a baffling mystery, the Trinity.

Personally, I think rather than asking how it can be, the better question is to ask what it means and what it implies about God and reality.

Another question should be, what is the advantage of Lee's interpretation, and what is the advantage of a different one.

I would say the advantage of Lee's is that it facilitates a more free-flowing experience of God. If you are not hung up on differentiating between the three you are content to know you are experiencing the one God in different forms, whether the source of God, the Father; the expression of God, the Son; or the realization of God, the Spirit. That's good stuff. I think many Christians experience a kind of mental "hiccup" in their experience of and prayer to God, because they are trying to consciously differentiate between the three to match their theology. This just brings in confusion.

But Lee's model has a problem too in that it tends to lose sight of the relational aspect of God. If the Father and Son don't truly "have fellowship" in the way we consider having fellowship with another person, then all fellowship is actually a illusion, even a sham.

So I would say to you, don't be so intent on defending Lee that you reject views of the Trinity which might help your realization of who and what God is. One of these is the model of the fellowship between the Father and the Son, realized as the Spirit. This is the fellowship that existed before God planned to have fellowship with us, and without which he never would have thought to have fellowship with us.

[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

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:

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:

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.

You are right there were many contributors, I read the front page it says:

THE
PULPIT COMMENTARY
EDITED BY THE
VERY REV. H. D. M. SPENCE, D.D.,
DEAN OF GLOUCESTER;
AND BY THE
REV. JOSEPH S. EXELL, M.A.
INTRODUCTIONS
BY THE
VEN. AECHDEACON F. W. FAEEAH, D.D., P.E.S.—EIGHT EEV. H. COTTEEILL, D.D., F.R.S E —VEEY EEV. PRINCIPAL J. TULLOCH, D.D.-EEV. CANON G. RAWLINSON, M.A. —EEV. A. PLUMMEE, M.A., D.D

The word entity means "a thing with distinct and independent existence". So if we say God is three entities, that is tri-theism in my view, because the persons of the Trinity are not independent.

I think there is confusion over the words entity and person. You disagree with the word entity it seems. We can say that the Trinity doctrine is Three distinct Persons in one entity. So it is correct to say that the Father and the Son are one entity. A number of Trinitarian resources say God is one entity. For example you can read the wikipedia article:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trinity
where it says

"because three persons exist in God as one entity"
and cites

Thomas, and Anton Charles Pegis. 1997. Basic writings of Saint Thomas Aquinas. Indianapolis, Indiana: Hackett Pub. Pages 307–9.

So many orthodox Trinitarians say God is one entity, nothing wrong with that.
The issue with Witness Lee is that he said God is one Person.

Now we have to differentiate between the meaning of entity and Person.

[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".

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

That might be a reasonable assumption for someone who has insufficient knowledge of the vast array of statements in scripture concerning the persons and nature of the Godhead to arrive at that conclusion.

But for someone who is well-versed in all of that, it is not reasonable to think that the oneness is so complete as to subsume the three into a single being denying what is clearly separate about them. Neither is it reasonable to conclude that they are simply Three that work in committee, or are the leaders of an array of gods that have their roles with the need to pray to each of them as something separate with the task of handling different issues. Like fertility, crops, rain, health, etc.

You provide a simplistic assumption as to what constitutes tritheism that would tend to make the fact of God speaking of his Son that is coming out of the water as the Spirit descends upon him into either evidence of three which would constitute tritheism, or parlor tricks by a singular for the appreciation of the masses. You are unable to get your mind around the concept of Three that should not be confused, that are one that should not be separated. As One, God is clearly understood as completely in harmony in all things. But that is not to the exclusion of the reality of the "us" that makes man in "our" image. In this one statement we dispel the notion that they really are just each other. If that were true, then there is no reality to Three. Just a smokescreen. If you need to reconcile it in human terms, you cannot get to Trinity. You can only get to either three totally independent gods, or one unified and undivided god.

But that is not the God revealed in the Bible. Our God is not defined in terms of persons, beings, or entities. He is One God that is "us" and "I." He is both. Not only one way or the other. To dismiss the reality of the Three is to dismiss most of the NT account. There is the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ. You pray to the Father. You ask the Father "in my name." (Not "ask the Father in his own name.")

It is a mystery that must be left as such. To insist that words have to mean only one possible thing, or to accept the added words of something other than what is in the scripture is to defy the mystery and force God into the image that you have for him.

As someone once said, "In the beginning, God made man in His image, and we have been returning the favor ever since."

The God that better fits one aspect of the scripture's revelation than the others is not the God that the Bible reveals. I am not trying to bring up that "another Christ" kind of complaint. Some throw those terms around to thump their chests at their superiority. It is enough that you already do that as you herald your "It's the oneness, stupid" kind of mantra and declare the others to be tritheists.

But when you argue that people are taking Lee's few remarks about God's "One" side out of context or ignoring what he says about the Three, I beg to differ. It is true that he would diligently declare that God is Three, citing the event at Jesus' baptism. And I don't think he was being false there. But it is evident that he didn't really have any use for the Three because he spent most of his serious teaching time declaring that they were just one. That they were simply each other. And misrepresenting verses like in John 4 when he declares that "God is Spirit."

I think he believed that God was Trinity, or Triune, but he lad little use for the Three. They were little more than aspects of One, not a true three. Show me where he really said that there were Three in a more meaningful way than as a quick rebuttal of the claims that he was modalist.

Besides, once we were to the point that there was the Father, Son, and Spirit to be considered (in other words, in the NT) The speaking of the Father, Son, and Spirit as separate from each other was predominant. Even the verses that have reference to their unity do not deny their separateness. Jesus never says "I am the Father." Neither does he say "I will be the Spirit" (or "I am the Spirit"). He speaks of the deep relationship between them, even the connection that is beyond what we understand as possible for two humans, without dismissing that he is the Son and the Father is the Father. We are not talking math here. we are not saying that 1 = 1. We are saying that A and B are more together than the "become one flesh" that occurs upon marriage of man and woman. Yet when A and B are that joined, they do not cease to be A and B (say "C" for example), but remain as A and B.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

I would disagree. I tend to give the words there more weight than those supplied by others. If "I and the Father are one" and I have also heard the Son pray to the Father, then I must assume that the definition of "one" that is in play is not about number, but about unity. Unity does not change number. As blunt as Jesus was on several occasions, he would have at least told the disciples in private something like "I am simply the God of the universe, therefore I am the Father" it that was all it was.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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".

And this is the reason that you, and Lee before you, have such a hard time with the Trinity. You are correct that the Trinity doctrine is illogical. But to think that it makes the idea that is hinted at in its illogic wrong is to presume that the God that gave us intellect cannot be something more than what we are able to understand. So a single God/being could do it all. He could even send part of himself to die on the cross. We think that would be impossible. But when we say that, we are denying the deity of God.

Of course, God, through his written word, describes something different from that. He describes Three that are in perfect unity. That stand together as God, not as Gods. That take different functions, yet are not simply aspects of a singular. That are more one/unified than most of us are with ourselves on a really clear-headed day, yet not obliterated into a singular for all meaningful purposes.

Is any of that logical? Not according to what humans can consider. They can only accept that as something of faith in a God beyond their own ability to describe in a coherent way.

Nothing must give. Except our insistence on forcing God to fit into one man-understandable model or the other. Lee's need to push God to be "simply each other" is evidence that he could not accept what he could not understand. So he created God according to what he could understand. Others have done it to the other side.

Do they still believe in the God of the Bible? I think so. Some are not so generous. I worry about those who declare that the Son is not God. Or that Jesus is the brother of Lucifer. I have my opinions as to their status as Christian. (And we just might agree on it.)

But Lee's problem is not just that he is moving toward the line of one extreme. It is that he teaches his followers to be dismissive of those who disagree. To label them as following a heresy. To refuse to break the bread of the Table with them (unless they come to your table and you decide to allow them to participate). This is a problem with respect to the unity of the church. This little sect has defined everyone but themselves outside of the "fellowship" and are happy to think they are the only ones really communing with God.

[aron]

Originally Posted by OBW

I would disagree. I tend to give the words there more weight than those supplied by others. If "I and the Father are one" and I have also heard the Son pray to the Father, then I must assume that the definition of "one" that is in play is not about number, but about unity. Unity does not change number. .

I've already apologetically signed off on discussions of the Trinity or the "godhead" or "person(s) of God" and thus will refrain from adding my ideas. But I'll add a point to understanding the text of the Bible, here. OBW has a point about being "operationally one", i.e. representing someone else. The Roman Centurion was operationally one with Caesar, and when he said, "Go there" it was Caesar speaking through him. Thus, his servants obeyed. But the Centurion never said, "I am Caesar". It was enough that he was under authority ("I also am a man under authority") and Jesus marveled at his faith. Jesus didn't give him a remedial lecture on the Trinity.

When Jesus spoke, the Father spoke. Just like the Centurion with Caesar. The Son fully expressed and represented the Father's will, and the Father delighted in Him (cf Psalm 18's 'He [the Father] rescued Me [the Son] because He delighted in Me"). This was true operational oneness. And we also should be one, even as He was one with the Father. One is here taken as a state of being, not a number.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

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.

What you're not taking into account is that "the creeds and the trinitarian dogma" are, for the most part, derived from the Bible alone. I understand that Witness Lee (and Nee) spent a lot of their time and energy trying to convince their followers otherwise, but they were in the minority regarding this matter. When all the dust settles, the vast majority of Christian teachers, scholars and apologists spanning the 2,000+ years of church history have agreed upon the proposition that God is "one in nature and three in Person" or "three Persons in one being or one nature". This simple axiom has never been good enough for some, and I'm quite sure it never will be for some. So be it.

I must tell all concerned, however, that those who say that these matters regarding the nature of God, as pertains to the Trinity, do not fall into the "essentials" category are mistaken in my estimation. Next to our very salvation, nothing can be more important. In fact, this matter is directly linked to our salvation - According to our Lord in John 17:3 "this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".

So I am very happy to see this matter being discussed in the forefront of our little forum. Don't we all want to know, revere and worship "the only true God"?
-

[Evangelical]

Linking the Trinity dogma to salvation is an error in my view. The aspect of the Trinity dogma that is linked to our salvation is the doctrine regarding Christ's divine or human nature. That is, if we don't believe certain things about Christ, such as His divinity and humanity, then we do not know Him. However, this is quite different from saying we must believe the Trinity dogma in all respects. Once we start down that path then we keep adding to the "requirements", such as baptism in the Catholic church, and weekly church attendance etc. There is nothing in the bible about a Trinity dogma being essential to salvation. When new converts were made in the book of Acts, Peter simply said "Believe on the Lord Jesus and you will be saved, you and your household." I am sure the new converts had little concept of the Trinity dogma, particularly if they were just converted from Judaism. I am sure the apostle Paul at his conversion did not have any concept of the Trinity. He only had experienced the risen Christ.

Getting doctrines and dogmas from "the bible alone" is not how the Roman Catholic or Orthodox churches operate. That is not how the Council of Nicea etc operated. It was largely a socio-political process involving much debate. The Trinity has to be taught alongside the bible. Anyone who knows their church history knows it evolved from a process of heated debate over a long period of time. You make it sound as if one day a group of Christians got together and decided to develop a doctrine of the Trinity by studying their bibles. But the reality was far from this. There was a lot of conflict and two and fro between both sides, blood was shed, Christians were killing Christians.