Lee's Trinity

[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.

[Cal]

Lee taught that "God is Triune for dispensing." This is something we all accepted as profound and true.

But, really, why does God need to be Triune to dispense? If God was a monolithic Spirit, why couldn't he just get into us as the Spirit he was? To say "God is triune for dispensing" is to say "God could not dispense if he was not triune." But how do we know this? We don't. Where does the Bible say God could not get into us if he wasn't triune? It doesn't, and simple reflection says there is no reason to assume that.

All we really know is that God is triune and God dispenses (assuming you accept the concept of dispensing). Lee is the one who made the connection. He liked the idea of dispensing so he connected it to the very nature of God.

Lee saw the Trinity as a kind of progression. This isn't totally wrong. As you go from the Father to the Son to the Spirit, God becomes more practical and experiential to us. This is reflected in 2 Cor 13:14 where it says the grace of Christ, the love of God and the fellowship of the Spirit be with you. Grace is more practical than love and fellowship is more practical than grace, but they all have the same source and nature.

However the Trinity within God is not a progression but reflective of his own inner relationship with himself. The Spirit flows between the Father and Son. The Spirit is the reality of God is in that it is where he "really lives," what he is really about. And he is really about relationship, starting with his relationship with himself, which is the relationship between the Father and the Son, and going on to his relationships with us, and from there our relationships with each other, which we give back to God as our corporate relationship, which is an expression of his relational nature, which gives glory to him.

He lets us in on his inner relationship so when we experience the Spirit we experience fellowship with the Father and the Son, because the Spirit is their fellowship.

But to say God is Triune for dispensing is to say God has no reason to be Triune except to dispense into us, which is to say God has no meaning without us. Simply put, no.

I realize some of the stuff I say here is speculative. But "God is triune for dispensing" is speculative too. And for my money what I'm saying makes a lot more sense than that.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by aron

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.

Aron,

If speaking of God's essence then i do not see how this is an example. The Father, Son, and Spirit are coequal in the Godhead. Caesar is the authority over the centurion. They are not coequals.

As a man the Son subjected Himself so the example appears to fit better if that is what you meant.

Drake

[Drake]

Igzy)"
But to say God is Triune for dispensing is to say God has no reason to be Triune except to dispense into us, which is to say God has no meaning without us. Simply put, no."

Not a logical progression so not how I see it .

I think of it this way. God is a triangular peg. Always was, always will be. According to His good pleasure He desires a resting place in His creation. As such in creation He creates triangular hole.. To the peg the hole is a counterpart. To the hole the peg must have created it in a certain way for the purpose of holding the peg, The hole knows the peg is still the peg whether the hole exists or not.

To bring it back, the Triune is for dispensing because He created us to contain Him. We can see that now. That does not lead to "God has no meaning without us". Brother Lee never said that.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Drake

If speaking of God's essence then i do not see how this is an example. The Father, Son, and Spirit are coequal in the Godhead. Caesar is the authority over the centurion. They are not coequals.

Like any analogy, it has weaknesses. But it does demonstrate an aspect of oneness that is attributed to God. Since we are directed (and prayed about) to be "one" as the Father and Son are one, then the manner in which any two or more humans can be one is related to (though not necessarily descriptive of all aspects of) the way God is one yet two/three.

[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.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by 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.

Once you dismiss what the verse said.

Of course the verse does not define a trinity. Only two. But it does it very well. There is God and the one he sent. Belief in both is required for salvation. Just believing in Jesus as the good master is not enough. You must believe in him as God. And not just some god. But of the God that is Three.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Linking the Trinity dogma to salvation is an error in my view.

Are you saying that our Lord Jesus Christ was in error? I quoted directly from John 17:3. What part of "this is eternal life" do you not understand? If you have a New Testament that uses red letters for the direct words of the Lord Jesus then this statement would be in red. Accept or reject any or all of the "Trinity dogma" as you wish, but I would beg you to consider the pure, unassailable, direct words of our Savior "this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".

The Trinity has to be taught alongside the bible.

Sure. Could you point me to a particular widely accepted, renown teacher, scholar or apologist who doesn't teach the Trinity alongside the Bible? Oh, you might find some infamous heretics, charlatans and apostle wannabes who wander far afield from the Bible, but this would be true when they speak of the Trinity as well as many other things. I wish to God that Witness Lee's followers had held him to the standard you expect others to follow.

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.

You make it sound as if God was not involved in this "process", or the Holy Spirit had no influence over these men. My friend, "heated debate" is something that God has used since the beginning. Some of these heated debates were actually recorded for us in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, the stark absence of debate, heated or otherwise, in the Local Church of Witness Lee, has contributed to the demise of the movement. Those of us who were around while Lee was alive, especially those of us who lived in So.Calif or Taipei, can testify of Witness Lee's harsh quashing of ANY debate regarding the teachings and practices he personally established. This dynamic continued after Lee's death, and it is most exemplified in "The One Publication" Bull.
-

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Are you saying that our Lord Jesus Christ was in error? I quoted directly from John 17:3. What part of "this is eternal life" do you not understand? If you have a New Testament that uses red letters for the direct words of the Lord Jesus then this statement would be in red. Accept or reject any or all of the "Trinity dogma" as you wish, but I would beg you to consider the pure, unassailable, direct words of our Savior "this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent".
-

But "the only true God" refers also to Christ Himself based upon 1 John 5:20:

1 John 5:20 We know also that the Son of God has come and has given us understanding, so that we may know him who is true. And we are in him who is true by being in his Son Jesus Christ. He is the true God and eternal life.

Now where is the verse that says there are TWO "true God's" ? Produce it please.

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Sure. Could you point me to a particular widely accepted, renown teacher, scholar or apologist who doesn't teach the Trinity alongside the Bible? Oh, you might find some infamous heretics, charlatans and apostle wannabes who wander far afield from the Bible, but this would be true when they speak of the Trinity as well as many other things. I wish to God that Witness Lee's followers had held him to the standard you expect others to follow.
-

If they teach it alongside the bible how can you say it is "from the bible alone"? Even you did not think the bible sufficient when you posted the Athanasian Creed to help you explain the "orthodox Trinity".

Originally Posted by UntoHim

You make it sound as if God was not involved in this "process", or the Holy Spirit had no influence over these men. My friend, "heated debate" is something that God has used since the beginning. Some of these heated debates were actually recorded for us in the New Testament. As a matter of fact, the stark absence of debate, heated or otherwise, in the Local Church of Witness Lee, has contributed to the demise of the movement. Those of us who were around while Lee was alive, especially those of us who lived in So.Calif or Taipei, can testify of Witness Lee's harsh quashing of ANY debate regarding the teachings and practices he personally established. This dynamic continued after Lee's death, and it is most exemplified in "The One Publication" Bull.
-

I am sure God was sovereign in this situation. But it's a weak argument to declare that whatever God permit under God's sovereign hand God also approves of.

Unlike Lee, it was very much a socio-political process, I believe Constantine was somehow involved. Then there is the matter of Christians killing Christians, which could never be sanctioned by God.