Lee's Trinity

[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.