|
09-09-2013, 09:42 AM
|
#1 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
The ‘Lonely Triune God’—LSM’s Oxymoron Nigel Tomes “Not Good for God to be Alone”—W. Lee Living Stream Ministry simultaneously maintains two contradictory tenets: [1] They maintain that God was “lonely,” “alone,” and “incomplete,” like a “single, lonely bachelor,” so He created mankind to be His counterpart. [2] They assert that God is triune, that the Three ‘Persons’ of the triune God are distinct, but never separate, and that the Three coexist, coinhere, and are inseparable. Hence, Jesus declared, “I am not alone…the Father is with Me” (John 16:32). However, this means that none of the Trinity’s three ‘Persons’ is ever alone or lonely. This is LSM’s oxymoron—the ‘lonely triune God’. This article examines the “lonely God” thesis offered by Witness Lee & Living Stream Ministry (LSM). We analyze their related teachings regarding the triune God. The inherent inconsistencies between these two strands are noted. Finally LSM’s portrayal is contrasted with perichoresis—the “dance of God”—emphasized by Bible expositors and theologians. These two depictions stand in stark contrast. “God was Alone…He was Lonely”—W. Lee What motivated God to create the human race? This question has been posed for centuries. Various answers have been offered. Witness Lee’s answer is simple—God was alone and lonely, like a ‘single, bachelor.’ He says,0 “The God revealed in Genesis 1:1 is a ‘bachelor’ God,” and1 “In eternity God was alone; we may even say that He was lonely. His desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, God created man according to His own being. God is loving, and He wants man to love Him.” Following mankind’s creation, God remained a “lonely bachelor,” W. Lee alleges saying,2 “God was courting His people, seeking a people to love Him. From the creation of the world until the time of Exodus 20, God was alone. In a sense, He was lonely, a ‘bachelor.’ …God lovingly courted His people. He had been lonely for a long time, and now He was seeking their love.” Gene Edwards shares Witness Lee’s ‘lonely God’ thesis. In his book, The Divine Romance, Edwards (who interacted with the “Lord’s Recovery” in the early years) portrays God telling Adam, “As I am alone, so are you alone.”3 “Not Good for God to be Alone”—W. Lee What is the basis for this assertion? W. Lee appeals to the creation of Eve (Gen. 2). Demonstrating his penchant for finding ‘deeper, hidden meanings’ in Scripture, W. Lee says,4 “Without man, God would feel lonely and would not be satisfied. After creating the first man, Adam, God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’ (Gen. 2:18). In saying this, God was also referring to Himself. In other words, it is not good for God to be alone, to be without man. Therefore, He created man so that man could be His counterpart.” On another occasion he says:5 “Before God had secured the proper man, He was alone. It was not good for God to be alone. Although God is absolutely and eternally perfect, He is not complete. To say that God is imperfect is to speak blasphemy. Our God is eternally perfect. Nevertheless, without the church He is incomplete...Therefore, when God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone, it meant that God Himself was incomplete and that it was not good for Him to be alone. Adam's need for a wife typifies & portrays God's need to have a complement. If we see this...Genesis 2 will be clear.” Yet again, in another context, W. Lee asserts,6 “Just as it was not good for Adam to be alone, single, so it is not good for God to be alone, to be a ‘bachelor’.” Witness Lee focuses on God’s statement, “it was not good for the man to be alone; I will make him a helper...” (Gen. 2:18, RcV). He draws several striking deductions from this:7 1. God was lonely; He “was alone.” “When God said that it was not good for Adam to be alone, it meant...it was not good for Him to be alone;” “God was…referring to Himself,” W. Lee writes. 2. God was “incomplete.” “Before God had secured the proper man...He is not complete...without the church He is incomplete,” W. Lee states; God was “eternally perfect,” yet “incomplete.” 3. God had an unmet need. “Adam's need...portrays God's need” W. Lee asserts; “Adam's need for a wife typifies and portrays God's need to have a complement,” he says. Like Adam, God was a ‘lonely, single bachelor,’ whose “desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels,” W. Lee alleges. “God is no longer Alone”—W. Lee Similarly, W. Lee asserts that Christ is “incomplete” without the Church,7 and that, as a result of Christ’s death, “God is no longer alone.”9 At the end of the Bible,10 “God is no longer single, no longer a bachelor.” Again God (or Christ) is depicted as “lonely, alone, and incomplete” without the church. God was lonely, incomplete, with unmet needs Let us consider W. Lee’s three deductions outlined in the three points above. Each of these bold assertions is striking; taken together they are shocking! We ask: are they logical? Is this depiction based on sound hermeneutic principles? Is it consistent with orthodox views about the Triune God? “Back Projection”—making God in Man’s own Image? 1. Witness Lee’s bold assertions are based on “types.” “Man is a type of God,” he says,11 and “Man typifies God as the real, universal husband who is seeking a wife for Himself.” Witness Lee then draws the deductions listed above. This is an unorthodox application of typology; it amounts to “back projection”—the fact that God perceives a deficiency in Adam is projected back upon God who (allegedly) has the same deficiency! So when God said, ‘It’s not good for the man to be alone’ (Gen. 2:18), W. Lee asserts that,12 “God was also referring to Himself. In other words, it is not good for God to be alone, to be without man.” Hence, since Adam is “alone, incomplete, with unmet needs,” W. Lee deduces this is also true of God. Stated succinctly, Scripture says God created man in His own image (Gen. 1:27); yet, in W. Lee’s exposition, this relationship is applied perversely —using “back projection”—God is being made in man’s own image! 2. Moreover casual observation suggests W. Lee’s logic is specious. Older believers often tell young, single brothers, “Perhaps you need to get married.” Does that imply the speaker is also unmarried and needs a spouse? Probably not! Many parents exhort their children, “You need to study more.” Does this imply the parents have the same need? A physician may tell his/her obese patient, “You need to join a weight-loss program.” Does the physician also need to join? It is certainly not self-evident that perceiving a need in others implies one has the same need. 3. Plus, every Old Testament ‘type’ is limited in its scope. Jonah typified Christ by spending three days in the fish’s belly (Matt. 12:40); Jonah did not foreshadow Christ when he disobeyed God’s call. Likewise Adam portrayal of Christ is limited; he typifies Christ in certain respects (Rom. 5:14). We cannot simply assume a priori that God’s condition mirrors Adam’s state. To say that God desires (“wants, needs?”) to be expressed (“glorified”) through Adam’s race is qualitatively different from asserting “Adam's need...typifies and portrays God's need...” The latter statement reduces God to a merely human level, and it makes God in man’s own image. Hermeneutic Principles Violated W. Lee claimed to have discovered “deeper, intrinsic significances” in Scripture, not evident to most Bible scholars.13 Yet his novel interpretation violates some basic principles of Bible interpretation. 1. It contradicts the Clarity [“Perspicuity”] of Scripture. This key principle recovered by the Reformers (Luther, Calvin, etc) states that,14 “Scripture is comprehensible enough so that, with the aid of the Holy Spirit and by using a sound hermeneutic that allows Scripture to interpret itself, anyone who desires to do so can understand God's message.” This principle has direct implications regarding15 “how Scripture should be interpreted. Is the Bible to be taken literally, within the boundaries of its own context? Or is there a deeper meaning, a non-literal (allegorical) sense intended for the spiritually elite? Perspicuity [Clarity] of Scripture maintains that the Bible is divine literature that is to be interpreted literally in its historical setting, with attention given to the ordinary rules of language. The main sense is the plain sense, the meaning that the Author [God via Scripture’s writers] intended to convey.” Witness Lee’s “deeper,” non-literal interpretation contradicts this principle, since his “lonely God” thesis is an inference not derived from the Bible’s clear words; it a (supposed) inference is derived from “reading between the lines” of Scripture. 2. It violates the Literal Sense: The plain meaning of the text—“it was not good for the man to be alone...” (Gen. 2:18)—is simply that Adam needed a counterpart, a companion. The “golden rule of interpretation” says,16 “When the plain sense of the scripture makes common sense, seek no other sense.” Applying this principle negates LSM’s inference based on “back projection,” that “in saying this, God was also referring to Himself,” and therefore Adam’s need necessarily implies that God Himself was “lonely, incomplete, with unmet needs.” The Bible never makes these latter statements; they are Witness Lee’s unsubstantiated inferences. 3. It ignores the Principle of Divine Accommodation. In presenting their claims LSM ought to recognize that Scripture’s depictions of God are accommodated to the human mind so we can comprehend it. On occasion the Bible describes God in terms of human features, emotions or needs. However, this is God condescending to describe Himself in terms that we, humans, can understand. Hence expositors caution that,17 “an understanding of this fact should cause the interpreter to avoid excessively literal exegesis when he finds God...resembling a man, who can be loving, hating, jealous, angry, glad, or filled with regret.” We ask: In proposing their “lonely God,” thesis hasn’t LSM engaged in an “excessively literal exegesis”? LSM’s ‘Lonely God’ contradicts Orthodox Views of the Trinity LSM’s “lonely God” thesis makes no mention of the Triune God. This omission is significant. When W. Lee talks about God being “lonely,” he does not refer to the “triune God.” This portrayal implicitly views “God” as a uni-person God; it is effectively Unitarian. Upon examination it becomes evident that LSM’s ‘lonely God’ contradicts orthodox Christian views of the triune God. 1. How can “One God in three Persons” be “lonely”? Is LSM’s “lonely God” consistent with the orthodox view of the Trinity? W. Lee asserts that,18 “Before God had secured the proper man, He was alone. It was not good for God to be alone.” Yet orthodox Christians maintain that God is triune—One God in three Persons. In what sense then was God “alone,” before mankind’s creation? The dictionary defines “alone” as: “separate… isolated from others.” But God’s statement, “Let Us make man in Our image...” (Gen. 1:26, RcV) recognizes the plurality of God and contradicts LSM’s notion that “God was alone.” Moreover Scripture describes an intimate relationship within the Trinity, between the Father and the Son. Even from eternity, the Father loved the Son; Jesus told the Father, “You loved Me before the world’s foundation” (John 17:24). And the Father declared, “This is My Son, the Beloved, in whom I have found My delight” (Matt. 3:17; 17:5, RcV). Yet W. Lee suggests God had an unfulfilled desire for love; He had no one to love Him; he asserts19 “In eternity God was alone …He was lonely. His desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, God created man according to His own being.” We agree that God’s “desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels.” Yet, John 17:24 testifies there was love within the Trinity; wasn’t that love adequate? Given the love between the Father and the Son, did God still have an unfulfilled need to be loved? Was God really a “lonely bachelor”? Moreover in eternity, divine fellowship (communion, community) existed among the Trinity (2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Jn. 1:3). In what sense then was God, the Triune God, “lonely”? “Lonely” is defined as “solitary, without company” and “destitute of friendly companionship.” This is the antithesis of God being triune and of the fellowship among the Three of the Trinity from eternity. Surely none of the “Persons” of the triune God was ever solitary, without company or destitute of companionship. A ‘lonely, triune God’ is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. 2. How can the mutually indwelling, coinhering, three of the Godhead be “lonely”? W. Lee frequently addressed the topic of the Trinity. He said,20 “The Scriptures tell us clearly and definitely that God is only one (1 Cor. 8:4; Isa. 45:5; Psa. 86:10), yet He is also three—the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. He is the Triune God.” Plus W. Lee agrees that the three Persons of the Triune God coexist, coinhere and mutually indwell one another. He says,21 “The relationship among the Father, the Son, and the Spirit is not only that They simultaneously coexist but also that They mutually indwell one another. The Father exists in the Son and the Spirit; the Son exists in the Father and the Spirit; and the Spirit exists in the Father and the Son. This mutual indwelling among the Three of the Godhead is called coinherence.” He also says,22 “Wherever one of the Godhead is, the other two are as well, because the three of the Godhead not only coexist but also coinhere.” Since, “Wherever one of the Godhead is, the other two are as well,” we ask, how could any one of the Three be “alone” or “lonely”? Isn’t LSM’s ‘lonely, triune God’ an oxymoron? 3. Jesus said, “I am not alone…the Father is with Me.” (Jn. 16:32; cf. 8:16) Prior to His death, Jesus told the disciples “you will be scattered…and will leave Me alone; yet I am not alone, because the Father is with Me.” (Jn. 16:32, RcV., cf. Jn. 8:16) Here the Son of God declares emphatically, “I am not alone…the Father is with Me.” W. Lee notes that this implies,23 “The Father can never be separated from the Son, and the Son can never be separated from the Father.” How can this statement be reconciled with LSM’s depiction of a “lonely God”? Surely Jesus’ statement implies the Father and the Son are never alone, since they are inseparable. Given this relationship, in what sense was God “alone”? W. Lee ignores the Trinity’s plural aspect when he asserts that God was lonely. In this context he adopts a Unitarian, uni-person view of the God; the three-fold aspect of the Trinity has been “collapsed” into the one-fold aspect.24 W. Lee seems to adopt a heterodox Unitarian position, for example, when he says,25 “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person.” His statement, “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are…one person,” suggests God is uni-personal. But most of the time W. Lee is more orthodox. Viewed differently, we could say that when asserting “God was alone…He was lonely,” W. Lee ignores the “internal relationships” within the Trinity and focuses exclusively on the “external relationship” between the Triune God and mankind. However, such a dichotomy between the Triune God’s “internal and external” relationships is artificial and invalid. In Scripture, “external,” humanity is invited (via God’s salvation) to participate in the “internal” fellowship of the Triune God (1 Jn. 1:3). Witness Lee’s depiction of the “lonely God” contradicts Scripture’s testimony (e.g. “I am not alone…the Father is with Me.” Jn. 16:32). It is also contradicts orthodox Christian tenets about the Trinity. Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton said “God Himself is a Society;” he asserts that the notion of a ‘lonely God’ belongs to Islam,26 not to the Christian faith27 Evangelical Theologians reject LSM’s ‘Lonely God’ thesis “God...is not a lonely God!” —Professor J. Rodman Williams Contemporary theologians have addressed the issue of the ‘lonely God’ and they roundly reject this notion. Dr. J. Rodman Williams, Theology Professor at Regent University, Virginia, USA states that,28 “since God is a Trinity of persons—Father, Son, and Holy Spirit—...He abides in eternal fellowship with one another. Though God is God alone, He is not a lonely God!” “God never has been lonely or alone…nor can he ever be”—Prof. Bruce A. Ware Dr. Bruce A. Ware is past President of the Evangelical Theological Society and currently Professor of Christian Theology at Southern Baptist Theological Seminary. Professor Ware writes,29 “God is never ‘alone.’ He never experiences, whether with or without the world he has made, a sense of individual isolation and ‘loneliness.’ He never has been lonely or alone, in this sense, nor can he ever be, even in principle. The one God is Three! He is by very nature both a unity of Being while also existing eternally as a society of Persons…They are in need of nothing but each other throughout all eternity.” This one statement refutes the twin notions proffered by LSM that God was lonely & alone, and that He had a lack or need which motivated His creation of the human race. In Tony Campolo’s words, “If the triune God is true, God never existed in isolation; instead God has always been in relationship.”30 “It is not God for God to be alone”—Prof. Douglas Groothuis Professor Douglas Groothuis of Denver Seminary maintains that since the Trinity is “intrinsically relational,” the concept that God was ‘alone’ is inconsistent with the Bible’s view of God. As he puts31 it—‘It is not God for God to be alone,’ meaning, ‘It is not the Bible’s view of God, that God was alone.’ Taken in context, Professor Groothuis writes,32 “The doctrine of the Trinity highlights…that God is intrinsically relational. Chesterton’s quip is not glib: ‘It is not God for God to be alone.’ God did not need to spring humans into existence in order to experience communication and have a relationship, bad Christian teaching to the contrary. Rather, in creating personal beings for living relationships, God was expressing something vital about his own nature.” Professor Groothuis states that mankind’s creation was not motivated by God’s need for relationship; he labels that notion as “bad Christian teaching.” Rather, Dr. Groothuis asserts that humans’ capacity for relationship reflects the fact that this attribute already existed and was experienced among the Trinity. These respected, evangelical theologians roundly reject LSM’s notion of a ‘lonely God,’ as inconsistent with orthodox Christian tenets regarding the Trinity. The “Divine Romance” of the Triune God & His Elect When W. Lee depicts God as “lonely,” he doesn’t refer to the “triune God.” Conversely when he talks about the “divine romance” of the Triune God with His elect, the triune God is not described as “lonely.” For e.g., W. Lee says “The Bible reveals…a divine romance between God and His elect…a universal couple. The male of this couple is God Himself, and the female is God's redeemed people. …The Husband is triune and the wife is tripartite, and thus they match each other...”33 Note that, in this context, there is no mention of the triune God being ‘lonely.’ Was W. Lee, perhaps, aware of the inherent contradiction of maintaining that God was simultaneously triune and also “lonely”? W. Lee is adamant that the Three of the Trinity are distinct, but not separate. He asserts that,34 “It is permissible to use the word distinct in reference to the three of the Trinity, but it is altogether inaccurate to use the word separate.” Again he says,35 “Although the Father, Son, and Spirit are distinct, They cannot be separate. The Three of the Godhead are inseparable.” Plus W. Lee says,36 “The Son never did anything apart from the Father (John 5:19). Therefore, when He became something, He did that with the Father. This is a crucial point, and it is an intrinsic part of the meaning of Triune. The Son...told us that the Father never left Him alone (John 8:29; 16:32). All the time the Father was with the Son...You cannot separate the Son from the Father at all.” We note, again, the Dictionary defines “alone” as, “separate, apart, or isolated from others.” W. Lee insists that Three of the Trinity are distinct, but not separate; they are inseparable. He also points out (correctly) that “The Son...told us that the Father never left Him alone (Jn. 8:29; 16:32).” But these statements about the triune God contradict his notion that God was “alone.” Plus “lonely” is defined as “characterized by...a depressing feeling of being alone,” “solitary, without company” or “destitute of friendly companionship.” Since none of the Three of the Trinity were ever “alone,” it follows that none was ever “lonely.” Plus the inseparability (Jn. 8:29; 16:32) and fellowship of the Trinity (1 Jn. 1:3; 2 Cor. 13:14) ensures that none ever lacked company or companionship. We conclude that W. Lee’s own teachings about the triune God contradict his notion of the “lonely God.” LSM is in the hopelessly conflicted position of simultaneously maintaining (on the one hand) that God created mankind because He was “lonely and alone,” and (on the other) that this God is triune.37 Do other Christian expositors and theologians propound a more consistent position on these issues? Christianity’s Alternative: Perichoresis—the “Dance of God” Witness Lee condemned the whole of Christianity for being “stranded on the sands of superstition, superficiality, and lukewarm theology.”38 Despite his casual dismissal, in recent years Christianity has revived an innovative approach to the Trinity, which offers an attractive alternative to LSM’s view. It centers on the concept of perichoreses or what is popularly termed, “the dance of God.” Dr. Randall E. Otto explains that,39 “Perichoresis is a theological term which describes the necessary being-in-one-another…of the 3 divine Persons of the Trinity because of the single divine essence, the eternal procession of the Son from the Father and of the Spirit from the Father and (through) the Son, and the fact that the 3 Persons are distinguished solely by the relations of opposition between them. This term was popularized in the 8th century by John of Damascus.” Less technically, Peter Leithart of New Saint Andrews College, ID., says,40 “Perichoresis [is] a doctrinal term…[which] means to contain or penetrate, and refers to the unity of the persons of the Trinity being so complete that they interpenetrate one another. Another Greek word which is etymologically related is perichoreuein, meaning ‘to dance around,’ and is the probable source of the image of the Trinitarian community in a divine dance.” Best-selling author, Timothy Keller of Redeemer Church, NYC, describes it like this: in the Trinity,41 “Each of the divine persons centers upon the others. None demands that the others revolve around him. Each voluntarily circles the other two, pouring love, delight, and adoration into them. Each person of the Trinity loves, adores, defers to, and rejoices in the others. That creates a dynamic, pulsating dance of joy and love. The early leaders of the Greek church had a word for this—perichoresis. Notice our word ‘choreography’ within it. It means literally to ‘dance or flow around’.” LSM’s “lonely God” over-emphasizes the oneness of the Triune God, suggesting the Three are “one Person.”42 In contrast, the concept of perichoresis is employed by theologians who “emphasize the threeness…of the Trinity, focusing on 3 divine individuals held together by a single divine essence, in which they participate…”43 says Dr. Oliver D. Crisp of the University of Bristol, UK. In this paradigm the three of the Triune God are viewed as relational, forming a44 “divine community, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, [which] is complete and exists in exceeding love, fellowship and joy. The divine persons eternally love one another, rejoice in one another, serve one another, affirm one another in perfect, unbroken fellowship whose excellence so far exceeds the categories of human relationship that it is beyond our [ability] even to imagine.” This description is consistent with Jesus’ declaration, “Father …You loved Me before the world’s foundation” (John 17:24) and Scripture’s teaching about the divine fellowship (2 Cor. 13:14; 1 Jn. 1:3). It follows from this that, if the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit form a “divine community…[which] is complete and exists in exceeding love, fellowship and joy,” then the Trinity was never “alone, or lonely.” America’s greatest theologian, Jonathan Edwards45 (1703 –58) concluded that,46 “God is infinitely happy. Within God is a community of persons pouring glorifying, joyful love into one another.” God is not, and never has been, lonely or alone. Why Did God create Mankind? Why did God create mankind? Witness Lee answers by asserting that God was lonely and alone. He writes,47 “God created man with the purpose of having a counterpart…In eternity God was alone; we may even say that He was lonely. His desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, God created man according to His own being. God is loving, and He wants man to love Him.” W. Lee tries to substantiate this notion based on a “deeper, intrinsic significance” hidden in Scripture.’ He asserts that when48 “God said, ‘It is not good for the man to be alone’ (Gen. 2:18)…God was also referring to Himself. In other words, it is not good for God to be alone.” But the Bible never says this, nor does it imply this. LSM’s concept of a lonely God, implicitly adopts a Unitarian view of a uni-person God. A lonely God is consistent with Islam; however it contradicts orthodox Christian tenets about the Triune God, tenets which W. Lee also propounds. Hence, LSM’s ‘lonely Triune God’ is an oxymoron, a contradiction in terms. Christian theologians rightly reject this notion. How do other expositors answer this question? Historian George Marsden of the University of Notre Dame, IN, summarizes Jonathan Edward’s view, saying,49 “The ultimate reason that God creates, says Edwards, is not to remedy some lack in God, but to extend that perfect internal communication [fellowship] of the triune God…” Mankind’s creation was motivated not by any lack or unmet need in God, but to share in the rich surplus, the super-abundance of the fellowship that has been enjoyed eternally within the divine Trinity. Or, as best-selling Christian author, Timothy Keller of Redeemer Church, NYC, says,50 “God did not create us to get the cosmic, infinite joy of love and glorification [He already has that], but to share it. We were made to join in the dance. If we center our lives on Him… we will enter the dance and share in the joy and love He lives in.” Personally I find this answer more appealing and more consistent with Scripture than LSM’s depiction of the “lonely God,” who in eternity was (in some sense) “alone” with unmet needs, whose51 “desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, [He] God created man…” Moreover, this alternative has the virtue of internal consistency between God’s motive for creating mankind and the Triune God’s own constitution; such consistency is absent from LSM’s hopelessly conflicted notion of a ‘lonely triune God.’ Nigel Tomes, Toronto, CANADA, September, 2013. Notes: As always the views expressed here are those of the author alone. They should not be attributed to the believers, elders or churches with whom he is associated. Thanks are extended to those who commented on earlier drafts. 0. W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 21, Section 3. In context, W. Lee says, “The God revealed in Genesis 1:1 is a ‘bachelor’ God…The 66 books of the Bible reveal the process through which the ‘single’ God has passed.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Cor., Chapter 21, Section 3] Note that here God is described as both “a bachelor” and “single.” 1. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1, emphasis added 2. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 53, Section 1, emphasis added. W. Lee argues that, at Mount Sinai, God was courting Israel. For our present purposes the exact timeframe—“From the creation of the world until the time of Exodus 20” —is irrelevant. Out point is LSM’s characterization of God as “lonely and alone.” In the present quote, W. Lee says, “God was alone. In a sense, He was lonely, a ‘bachelor’.” 3. The quote is from Gene Edwards, The Divine Romance, (Tyndale House Publishers) p. 11. Gene Edwards also describes the “mutual loneliness, the shared sadness” of God and Adam, “that they were alone.” (p. 8) Edwards portrays Adam telling God, “I am, as you are, Alone!” (p. 9). The shared perspective of Gene Edwards’ Divine Romance and W. Lee’s writings (quoted above) should not surprise long-time Local Church members. W. Lee complained publicly, on more than one occasion, that “someone” had attended his US conferences in the early years, “stolen his ideas” and then published them under his own name. 4. W. Lee, Christ Being the Burden of the Gospel, Chapter 8, Section 2, emphasis added 5. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 17, Section 2 & also reproduced in Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chapter 10, Section 1, emphasis added. The last sentence also appears in LSM’s Recovery version Bible footnotes in the form of: “Adam's need for a wife typifies and portrays God's need, in His economy, to have a complement.” [Gen. 2:18, note 1, RcV] Along the same lines, elsewhere W. Lee says, “Adam...was a lonely man. Hence, the Bible says that ‘it is not good that the man should be alone’ (Gen. 2:18). This signifies that it is not good for God to be alone. He does not want to dwell alone.” [W. Lee, God's Way in Life, Chap. 1, Sect. 2, emphasis add] 6. W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 21, Section 2 (emphasis added). In context, W. Lee says, “Just as it was not good for Adam to be alone, single, so it is not good for God to be alone, to be a ‘bachelor.’ Without His chosen people as His bride, God is ‘single.’ He is only half of the universal couple. I realize that this thought is frightening to the doctrinal or theological mind. When they hear this, some may say, ‘Are you teaching that God in Himself is not complete? How can you compare God to a bachelor or to one half of a melon? This is heresy! No one should follow such a false teaching! God is almighty, perfect, and complete. As the great One, the King, the Ruler in the heavens, He is the object of worship. We have been created by Him, and we must prostrate ourselves before Him in worship.’ Of course, God in Himself is complete. However, many who use the truth of God's completeness to argue against the revelation in the Bible concerning the universal couple see only the outward appearance of the Word. They know only the feathers and the skin. If we grasp the inward reality of the Word, we shall realize that God will never be satisfied with mere outward worship from His creatures. We shall know that, deep in His heart, He wants a bride.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Corinthians, Chapter 21, Section 2] Note that W. Lee seeks to pre-empt anticipated criticism of his assertions. 7. The quoted statements are taken from the paragraph reproduced above. Source: W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chapter 17, Section 2 & also reproduced in Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chapter 10, Section 1, emphasis added 8. “Without the church Christ is incomplete. According to God's thought, it was not good for Adam to be alone, and it is not good for Christ to be without the church (Gen. 2:18-24; Eph. 5:23-32). Adam needed Eve, and Christ needs the church.” [W. Lee, Crucial Truths in the Holy Scriptures, Vol. 6, Chapter 1, Section 5, emphasis added.] Watchman Nee also addresses this situation. However, Watchman Nee’s utterance is distinctly more circumspect. He says, “In God's view, Christ seems to be incomplete without us, as though it was not good for Christ to live alone, and as though He would still be lacking if He did not have the sinners. God's purpose in saving us is not just for us but also for Christ. God wants Christ to be satisfied, pleased, and completed. Therefore, He gives us to Christ. Let us see that we are called not just for our own blessings, but also to satisfy Christ's heart. Our responsibility is not to fail God. To whatever extent we satisfy Christ is the same extent God has not failed Christ.” [W. Nee, Collected Works, Vol. 8: The Present Testimony (1), Chapter 29, Section 1] Notice W. Nee’s abundant use of qualifying phrases: it “seems” & “as though.” The present article is limited in scope—it considers only LSM’s published writings of Witness Lee. Examination of Watchman Nee’s writings is deferred to another occasion. 9. W. Lee says: “The result of Adam's sleep…was that he gained Eve as his counterpart…This signifies that the result of Christ's death…was that He obtained the church ...Henceforth, God is no longer alone, for Christ has gained a counterpart to match Him.” [W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chap. 10, Sect. 3, emphasis added] 10. W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Cor., Chapter 21, Section 3. In the context of Rev. 22, W. Lee says, “Spirit has a counterpart, an increase, an addition. This means that the Spirit has something to match Him. God is no longer single, no longer a bachelor, for He has a bride to match Him. For this reason, the consummate revelation in the Bible is that of the all-inclusive Spirit with the bride.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of 2 Cor., Chapter 21, Section 3 (emphasis added)] 11. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chap. 17, Sect. 2 & also Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chap. 10, Sect. 1 12. W. Lee, Christ Being the Burden of the Gospel, Chapter 8, Section 2 13. As a further illustration of W. Lee’s penchant for finding “deeper, hidden, intrinsic significance” in Scripture, consider the following statements regarding Jesus’ washing his disciples’ feet in John 13: “At the Lord's table [some Christians] wash one another's feet to express their love for one another. …But this matter of foot-washing signifies something more important. As we have seen, everything mentioned in this Gospel [John] is a sign that indicates something deeper and spiritual. Therefore, foot-washing is also a sign signifying something deeper and spiritual. But it is rather difficult to discover the spiritual significance of this sign. What is its deeper, spiritual significance?” [W. Lee, Life-Study of John, Chapter 27, Section 1 (emphasis added)] W. Lee also claimed to have seen the intrinsic significances which have been hidden for 2,000 years; he says “Throughout church history over the last 2,000 years…Few have entered deeply into their intrinsic significances. It was not until the time when the Lord raised up the recovery in China…that the intrinsic significances of these matters were made known to us one by one.” [W. Lee, Governing & Controlling Vision in the Bible, Chapter 2, Section 1 (emphasis added)] He depreciates the teachings of Christianity as “shallow,” compared to his “deeper” insights, saying “The shallow teaching of Christianity tells us things mostly according to the black and white. But we have realized more by our further and deeper study. I have been studying this Book further and further for over 69 years. Gradually my study of the Bible has been getting deeper & deeper and higher & higher.” [W. Lee, Practical Way to Live a Life According to the High Peak of the Divine Revelation in the Holy Scriptures, Chapter 3, Section 2 (emphasis added)] Concerning the Old Testament, W. Lee, alleged that his teaching gave the “deeper, intrinsic significance;” for e.g. he says, “In studying…the Old Testament, we need the full scope of…God's eternal economy… This will render us…the deeper, intrinsic significance of God's purpose in presenting to us the histories and giving us the prophecies of the Old Testament.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Joshua, Judges & Ruth, Chapter 1, Section 1] 14. G. Breshears, The Perspicuity of Scripture, p. 3. Professor Breshears points out that Luther & Calvin “were objecting to any allegorical or ‘spiritual’ interpretation of Scripture that was not based on the plain, literal sense of the words placed within their own literary and historical context.” [G. Breshears, The Perspicuity of Scripture, p. 30, http://www.westernseminary.edu/paper...ty.doc] The important Reformation principle of the Clarity [“Perspicuity”] of Scripture, is the view “that the Bible can be understood by people through the enlightenment of the Holy Spirit and that people need to search the Scripture and judge for themselves what it means.” [Larry D. Pettegrew, The Perspicuity of Scripture, The Master's Seminary, 2004.] The following quotes explain the significance of this principle: Prof. F. F. Bruce emphasizes the Holy Spirit’s role in guiding each believer. Bruce says, “The Holy Spirit is also the supreme Interpreter of the Scriptures, doing for us to-day as we read them what Christ did for the disciples on the road to Emmaus when He expounded to them in all the Scriptures the things concerning Himself.” [F. F. Bruce, “What Do We Mean By Biblical Inspiration?” Journal of the Transactions of the Victoria Institute, vol. 78 (1946): p. 128] Princeton’s Charles Hodge wrote, the Perspicuity [Clarity] of Scripture “means that in accordance with the priesthood of the believer, every Christian has the right…to read and interpret it for himself, so that his faith may rest on the testimony of the Scriptures, and not on that of the [Roman Catholic] Church.” [Charles Hodge, Systematic Theology vol. 1:183.] Thus the Reformation replaced the Church’s infallible statements allegorizing Scripture with the individual’s right to read and interpret Scripture for him/ herself based on its literal sense. Graeme Goldsworthy explains that “The Reformers recovered the authority of the Bible…[and] a biblical doctrine of Scripture. Protestant interpretation… was based upon the concept of the perspicuous (clear & self-interpreting) nature of the Bible…removing an authority for interpretation from outside the Bible—the infallible church.” [Graeme Goldsworthy, Is the Old Testament for Christians?] 15. G. Breshears, The Perspicuity of Scripture, pp. 8-9. http://www.westernseminary.edu/paper...erspicuity.doc 16. See for e.g. Russell Penney, Introduction to Classical Evangelical Hermeneutics, p. 67 17. BIBLICAL HERMENEUTICS, Hermeneutics 3-09, p. 7 http://makarios-online.org/notes/pdf...cs%203-09.pdf] On this topic, Kenton L. Sparks writes, "Accommodation is God’s adoption in inscripturation of the human audience’s finite and fallen perspective. Its underlying conceptual assumption is that in many cases God does not correct our mistaken human viewpoints but merely assumes them in order to communicate with us." [Kenton L. Sparks, God’s Word in Human Words, An Evangelical Appropriation of Critical Biblical Scholarship, pp. 230-31] 18. W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chap. 17, Section 2 19. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1, emphasis added 20. W. Lee, Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord's Recovery, Chapter 1, Section 3 21. W. Lee, Crucial Points of the Major Items of the Lord's Recovery, Chapter 1, Section 3 22. W. Lee, All-inclusive Indwelling Spirit, Chapter 6, Section 2 23. W. Lee, Jn. 8:16, note 1, RcV. 24. We note that W. Lee tends to avoid the term “person” when talking about the Triune God. Instead of using the term “Person” (e.g. “Three Persons”) he often talks about the “Three” of the Triune God. On this issue, Karen Kilby, Assoc. Prof. of Systematic Theology at the Univ. of Nottingham, UK writes, “All Christian theologians who want to consider themselves orthodox are committed to the proposition that God is three “persons.” And all modern theologians seem to agree that the meaning of person in the context of the Trinity is not simply identical with our current understanding of the word. But as to just how different the meaning is, and in what way, there is not such unanimity.” [Karen Kilby, ‘Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity,’ New Blackfriars, vol. 81 (2000)] 25. The statement "The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person." Is taken from W. Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man, p. 48 (emphasis added) and quoted in “An Open Letter from 70 evangelical Christian scholars to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry” www.open-letter.org] The 70 scholars quote this published statement by W. Lee due to its (apparent) conflict with orthodox statements concerning the Trinity/triune God. Note that elsewhere W. Lee counsels against using the term “person,” yet here he employs it himself! For e.g. he says, “As much as possible, we should avoid words such as person, substance, essence, subsistence, and hypostasis.” [W. Lee, Young People's Training, Chapter 7, Section 2, emphasis added] 26. Under the heading, “God Himself is a Society," the noted journalist and Christian apologist G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) wrote the following: "There is nothing in the least liberal or akin to reform in the substitution of pure monotheism for the Trinity. The complex God of the Athanasian Creed may be an enigma for the intellect; but He is far less likely to gather the mystery and cruelty of a Sultan than the lonely god of Omar or Mahomet. The god who is a mere awful unity is not only a king but an Eastern king. The heart of humanity, especially of European humanity, is certainly much more satisfied by the strange hints and symbols that gather round the Trinitarian idea, the image of a council at which mercy pleads as well as justice, the conception of a sort of liberty and variety existing even in the inmost chamber of the world. For Western religion has always felt keenly the idea "it is not well [good] for man to be alone." The social instinct asserted itself everywhere as when the Eastern idea of hermits was practically expelled by the Western idea of monks. So even asceticism became brotherly; and the Trappists were sociable even when they were silent. If this love of a living complexity be our test, it is certainly healthier to have the Trinitarian religion than the Unitarian. For to us Trinitarians (if I may say it with reverence)—to us God Himself is a society. It is indeed a fathomless mystery of theology, and even if I were theologian enough to deal with it directly, it would not be relevant to do so here. Suffice it to say here that this triple enigma is as comforting as wine and open as an English fireside; that this thing that bewilders the intellect utterly quiets the heart: but out of the desert, from the dry places and the dreadful suns, come the cruel children of the lonely God [i.e. radical Moslem adherents of Islam]; the real Unitarians who with scimitar [a sword with a curved blade, originating in the Middle East] in hand have laid waste the world. For it is not [good] well for God to be alone." G. K. Chesterton: Orthodoxy (emphasis added). Writing in the era before political correctness was fashionable, Chesterton talks about, “the lonely god of Omar or Mahomet” and refers to the jihadist-Moslem conquests of history with the words, “out of the desert…come the cruel children of the lonely God.” Chesterton’s inference is clear—a “lonely God” is characteristic of Islam and not of Christianity. 27. We could further examine the question: Does God have “unmet needs”? In order not to detract from our major focus, we simply note here (without taking a definitive position on this issue) that most theologians maintain that God is self-sufficient; He has no unmet needs. They hold that, “Because God is triune, he has eternally been personal and relational in his own being, in full independence from his creation. God has never had any unmet needs, ‘nor is he served by human hands, as though he needed anything…’ (Acts 17:25).” [ESV study Bible p. 2515, emphasis added. Elaborating, they hold that, “Personhood becomes real only within realized relationships, and the reality of relationship can only exist where one has something or someone that is not oneself to relate to; if, then, God had not been plural in himself he could not have been a personal, relational God till he had begun creating, and thus would have been dependent on creation for his own personhood, which is a notion as nonsensical as it is unscriptural. Between the persons of the Trinity, there has always existed total relational harmony and expression; God is, from this standpoint, a perfect society in himself. Apart from the plurality in the Trinity, either God’s eternal independence of the created order or his eternally relational personal existence would have to be denied.” [[ESV study Bible p. 2515] In the New International Reader’s NT, Acts 17:25 says, God “doesn’t need anything.” This matches the axiom of God’s independence, which maintains that “God never experiences need.” Contrast this with W. Lee’s repeated assertion that, “Adam's need for a wife typifies and portrays God's need to have a complement.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Genesis, Chap. 17, Sect. 2 & also Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. #205-220), Chap. 10, Sect. 1, emphasis added. LSM’s Recovery version Bible footnotes reproduce this statement in the form of: “Adam's need for a wife typifies and portrays God's need, in His economy, to have a complement.” Gen. 2:18, note 1, RcV] Plus W. Lee asserts that a reciprocal relationship of need exists between God and man. He alleges, “Man needs God, but God also needs man.” This also contradicts the axiom of God’s self-sufficiency. [Taken in context W. Lee says, “Man lacks everything if he lacks God, and God lacks satisfaction if He lacks man. If man does not have God, he is empty, and if God does not have man, He has no one to fill. Man needs God, but God also needs man.” W. Lee, Christ Being the Burden of the Gospel, Chapter 8, Section 2, emphasis added] All this is sufficient to show that W. Lee’s views differ significantly from the views expressed by some other theologians. 28. Dr. J. Rodman Williams, Theology Q&A, Christian Broadcasting Network, CBN.com, emphasis added. Dr. Williams functioned as the “resident theologian” answering the theological concerns of viewers. 29. Bruce A. Ware, Father, Son & Holy Spirit: Relationships, Roles & Relevance, (2005) pp. 20-21 30. Tony Campolo, Communicating Like Jesus, p. 6 31. Professor Douglas Groothuis attributes this saying to the Christian apologist, G. K. Chesterton (1874-1936) (see the following quote in the main text) . However, we are unable to locate this quote in Chesterton’s writings. 32. Douglas Groothuis, Christian Apologetics: A Comprehensive Case for Biblical Faith, p. 83 33. W. Lee, Life-Study of Joshua, Judges & Ruth, Chapter 9, Section 1, emphasis added. On another occasion W. Lee writes, “In Revelation 22:17 we have the forming of the universal couple. This couple is the mingling of the processed and dispensed Triune God with the regenerated and transformed tripartite man. This couple is the ultimate consummation of the divine romance revealed in the Bible. According to the entire Bible, there is a divine romance between God the Creator, the Redeemer, who is the male, and His redeemed people who are the female. This is a basic matter revealed in the Scriptures.” [W. Lee, Conclusion of the NT, (Msgs. 172-188), Chapter 8, Section 2] Here also W. Lee talks of the “triune God” being in a “divine romance.” LSM’s Truth Lessons reproduce W. Lee’s expositions (almost) verbatim. E.g. “According to the entire Bible, there is a divine romance between God the Creator, the Redeemer, who is the male, and His redeemed people, who are the female... The ultimate consummation of the divine romance revealed in the Bible is a couple. This couple is the mingling of the processed and dispensed Triune God with the regenerated and transformed tripartite man. Revelation 22:17 reveals that this universal couple, as the ultimate consummation of the divine romance revealed in the Bible, is the mingling of the processed and dispensed Triune God with the regenerated and transformed tripartite man. The Bible begins with the marriage of Adam and Eve in Genesis and ends with the marriage of the Spirit and God's redeemed people in Revelation. This final marriage is the marriage of the processed, consummated, and dispensed Triune God as the Husband with His regenerated and transformed people as the bride. For eternity this universal couple will be the full manifestation of the Triune God expressed in all His glory. This is the conclusion of the New Testament and also of the entire Bible. At the conclusion of the Bible there is an eternal, universal couple expressing the Triune God for eternity.” [LSM, Truth Lessons, Level 4, Vol. 3, Chapter 10, Section 2] 34. W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 1: The Ministry of the New Testament, Chapter 4, Section 1 35. W. Lee, Life-Study of Philippians, Chapter 45, Section 1 36. W. Lee, Elders' Training, Book 1: The Ministry of the New Testament, Chapter 4, Section 1 37. We note also that this contradiction within W. Lee’s teachings cannot be excused on the basis that a “stripped down” version of the Christian message is being presented for the purpose of preaching the gospel or instructing young people. Both these strands of W. Lee’s teachings are included in LSM’s “Conclusion of the New Testament” series which purports to present a comprehensive collection of W. Lee’s teachings. [See references in these notes] 38. W. Lee, Triune God's Revelation and His Move, Chapter 12, Section 4 39. Randall E. Otto, The Use and Abuse of Perichoresis in Recent Theology, Scottish Journal of Theology, Vol. 54, Issue 3 (Aug, 2001) pp 366-384. We note that Thomas F. Torrance, Professor of Christian Dogmatics at the University of Edinburgh, holds a view of perichoresis which is intimately connected with the homoousion, the shared substance of the divine persons, and governed by the mutual indwelling of the Father and the Son and the Spirit. [Thomas F. Torrance, The Christian Doctrine of God: One Being Three Persons (Edinburgh, T&T Clark, 1996), p. 97]. 40. Peter J. Leithart, “The Dance of God, the Dance of Life” (online Internet article) 41. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God: Belief in an Age of Skepticism, p. 215. 42. Recall W. Lee’s statement, “The Father, the Son, and the Spirit are not three separate persons or three Gods; they are one God, one reality, one person.” [W. Lee, The Triune God to Be Life to the Tripartite Man, p. 48 (emphasis added) and quoted in “An Open Letter from 70 evangelical Christian scholars to the leadership of the “local churches” and Living Stream Ministry” www.open-letter.org] 43. Oliver D. Crisp, Problems with Perichoresis, TYNDALE BULLETIN, 56.1 (2005) p. 136. Karen Kilby, Assoc. Prof. of Systematic Theology at the University of Nottingham, UK., points out that, “It is the divine perichoresis which makes the three [persons of the Trinity] one, and it is perichoresis which makes the Trinity a wonderful doctrine. There is among the three divine persons, it is said, a kind of mutual interpenetration which is not to be found amongst human persons, and it is because of this perfect interpenetration that the three persons are one God.” [Karen Kilby, ‘Perichoresis and Projection: Problems with Social Doctrines of the Trinity,’ New Blackfriars 81 (2000) p. 435 quoted by Oliver D. Crisp Problems with Perichoresis, TYNDALE BULLETIN, 56.1 (2005) p. 135] 44. We note also that Dr. Oliver Crisp proposes what he terms, “The Weak Person-perichoresis Thesis, or WPT” which he defines as follows: “The persons of the Trinity share all their properties in a common divine essence apart from those properties that serve to individuate one of the persons of the Trinity, or express a relation between only two persons of the Trinity.” This may be called the Weak Person-perichoresis Thesis, or WPT. On this version of person-perichoresis the inter-penetration of each of the persons of the Trinity by the others is limited, rather than complete. But this, it seems to me, is a requirement for a doctrine of person-perichoresis that makes sense, otherwise the individuation of the persons of the Trinity is jeopardised. [Oliver D. Crisp, ...Perichoresis, TYNDALE BULLETIN, 56.1 (2005) p. 139] We don’t discuss this here; it is beyond the scope of this article. 45. George P. Fisher, An Unpublished Essay of Edwards on the Trinity, p. 77 46. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, p. 217 Keller summarizing Edward’s view. Jonathan Edwards "is widely acknowledged to be America's most important and original philosophical theologian,” says the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy. Keller’s views are influenced by Edwards. Robinson W. Mitchell notes that “Timothy Keller acknowledges Edwards’ influence, and observes that the simple statement from John’s letter [i.e., ‘God is love,’] expresses an eternal truth about the nature and being of God. Only if God exists in community would the statement be true of him in an eternal sense. Love presupposes a subject and object, and thus ‘God is love,’ could not be true of a unitary God who had not created anything to love. Says Keller, ‘the very heart of reality, the meaning of life, the very essence of community is because of what has been happening in the interior life of God for all eternity. This is the …divine dance’.” [Timothy Keller, “Father, Son and Holy Spirit,” sermon preached at Redeemer Presbyterian Church, New York, Jan. 15, 2006 quoted by Robinson W. Mitchell, MISSION: A MARK OF THE CHURCH? TOWARD A MISSIONAL ECCLESIOLOGY, Thesis Reformed Theological Seminary, (Aug., 2008) pp. 44-45] 47. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1 48. W. Lee, Christ Being the Burden of the Gospel, Chapter 8, Section 2, emphasis added 49. George Marsden, Jonathan Edwards: A Life (Yale Univ. Press, 2003) pp. 462-3 quoted by Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, p. 218 50. Timothy Keller, The Reason for God, p.219 51. W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1. W. Lee’s statement (in context) reads: “In eternity God was alone; we may even say that He was lonely. His desire for love could not be fulfilled by angels. Therefore, God created man according to His own being. God is loving, and He wants man to love Him.” [W. Lee, Life-Study of Exodus, Chapter 55, Section 1 emphasis added to indicate portion quoted in the main text.]
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
09-09-2013, 12:19 PM
|
#2 | ||||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Wow...it has been years that I even considered God was lonely and thus He created man! What a far fetched thought! But in the end...God does have a wife and a bride. The greatest blessing of all !!!
Jeremiah 1:5 says this: Quote:
We also know from Ephesians 1:4 Quote:
How could God be lonely if He KNEW us and CHOSE US before the foundation of the world ??!!! He was also surrounded by angels. And GOD is LOVE. He was surrounded by LOVE. To the question, why God created man? I have my personal opinion I concluded through studying the Word of God. And here goes: It is my belief, that God knowing everything..the end from the beginning, decided to put Satan in his place after he and a third of the angels rebelled and were kicked out of heaven. We know Satan was called Lucifer which means 'son of the Morning' and a 'Light bearer'. He was pretty high up there because he too had a throne. Where do we suppose Lucifer was when he said those infamous words? Quote:
Is it no wonder why we have a difficult time surrendering OUR WILL to God's Perfect Will? Lord have Mercy on us! THY WILL be done on earth..in us AS Your Perfect Will is done in heaven. So why was the earth without form and void before the creation of man? Because Satan and his minion of rebellious, fallen angels had polluted the earth on their way here when they were kicked out of heaven. There is compelling evidence in Ezekiel 28 that Lucifer was on earth before God created Adam and Eve. Quote:
In accusing God he became the devil for the word means "accuser". Lucifer became both Satan and the Devil. So did God make the Devil? No. God created Lucifer and Satan, the devil made himself. So as he fell, Lucifer became Satan, the Devil and in persuading others to follow him he introduced 'Evil' into the universe. All this said........ now brings me to my theory why God created man. As I pointed out at the beginning, we were already with God in spirit form. He knew us and we knew Him. I believe after Satan and his minion were thrown out, our Father and Creator called us together and told us He had an assignment for us. (Remember: many are CALLED but few are chosen.) I believe He told us this mission He had was to sent us to earth. We were going to be given a body. Our memories for the most part would be erased. We would suffer but would be rewarded greatly! (trying to condense my thoughts here.  )Whosoever volunteered was chosen for this assignment. Many were called to this assignment but few (?) were chosen. I believe we all have a longing to return to our Creator. The Word of God tells us we are not of this world. We love GOD because He first loved us! He chose us before the foundation of the world and He knew us before we were formed in our mother's womb. So was God lonely? I do not believe He was.. I believe we are here to prove to God's adversary, no matter how he lies, steals, kills, he cannot separate us from the LOVE of GOD. And what a spectacular miracle to not only belong to our Heavenly Father and Creator but to have HIM reside in us through His Word (Jesus Christ) and His Spirit. Our reward: to be His Wife and His Bride. (Redeemed Israel will be the Wife and the Redeemed Gentile, the Bride of Christ). Thanks for reading my thoughts, my opinion. Blessings. Carol G
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
||||
|
|
|
|
09-09-2013, 06:59 PM
|
#3 |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2008
Posts: 40
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Well, hello again. It has been a while since I have posted here. But I regularly read posts and could not resist commenting on this post.
As usual, Nigel challenges us on our core beliefs. So often we presume a thing is so because we were taught it. Then one day we read the Word, and think, "hold it! The bible does not actually say that". I agree with Nigel, in that we need to interpret scripture with scripture. Witness Lee takes things too far when he interprets verses and then makes sweeping statements that are not found in scripture. Just recently, we were looking at an old lifestudy of John. It seemed harmless enough. But as we read the scripture references, i realised that WL's assertions were foundless. I refer to John 3:14 where Jesus says that as Moses lifted up the serpent in the wilderness, so must the Son of Man be lifted up. The obvious reading is that Jesus will be lifted up on a pole just as the serpent was. But WL launched into a long dissertation, that this means That we were bitten by satan and thus have a serpentine nature. Also that Jesus died in the form of a serpent to deal with our serpentine nature. But hey, this is never mentioned in scripture. Jesus says he came in the form of a sinful man but not a serpent. We are sinful in our own right, but no mention is made of satan indwelling us. Amen to scripture alone, with the enlightening of the Holy Spirit . |
|
|
|
|
09-10-2013, 11:24 AM
|
#4 | |
|
Member
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 360
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Quote:
1. He becomes a commodity like a chemical blob that is only to be ingested etc. 2. And as Nigel has pointed out He is incomplete and has unmet needs. |
|
|
|
|
|
09-15-2013, 10:47 AM
|
#5 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God'
Quote:
So we, who were lost and alienated, were returned to our Father in heaven when we believed into Jesus Christ. He opened the door for the lost sheep to return. John's gospel commentary in chapter 11 says that Jesus would die "...not only for that nation [Israel] but also for the scattered children of God, to bring them together and make them one". We were the children of God but we bacame scattered, like wild animals, biting and devouring each other, and Jesus' great sacrifice opened the way for our return, together in triumphant love, to our Father in heaven. Yes, that did entail being "born again", but how could we be dead, except we had first lived? Remember what the father says in the parable in Luke 15: "My son was dead and now lives". (v. 31) The prodigal son was a son, but a dead son. Then he came back to life: he was born again. Like CMW, just my thoughts here. But read Origen the Alexandrian scholar if you want to see some confirmation and development of this idea, from someone who was there before us, and who had access to material now lost.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
09-15-2013, 11:19 AM
|
#6 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God'
Quote:
---------------------------------------- I have another take on the "lonely God". I believe that God likes to act through intermediaries. Hagar, speaking to an angel, said in Genesis 16:13, "You are the God who sees me". God sits on a throne and around Him spins a wheel of immense magnitude, whose rim is full of eyes. These angels of God are His eyes, running to and fro; not one sparrow falls but God does not know about it. These angels are pure, they have no will apart from God. So when they speak, God speaks through them. Gabriel said to Mary, "No word from God will ever fail" (Luke 1:37). When Gabriel spoke to Mary, the Father was speaking through him. Gabriel never distorted the word, but carried it faithfully and truly through darkness and tribulation to reach a poor Jewish girl in occupied Judea. And look at Revelations 1 through 3. God on the throne speaks through Jesus the Word of God, who is walking through the golden lampstands. Jesus speaks to the angel of the church of such-and-such, and then you read "...what the Spirit is speaking to the churches". You have a chain of custody: God-Son-angel-Spirit-churches. You have an unbroken chain of faithful mediatorial agents. My point is what? First, that at the center of this "great wheel" God's throne is secure. No bumps when the pram goes on the tube (when the baby carriage enters the subway), because the wheels are so immense that the cover any gap with aplomb. Through His many mediatorial agents the "rough places" are surely made smooth. Second, to think that God is lonely in the middle of this great wheel of creation is rather ridiculous, when you consider that the thought comes from a disobedient and sinful human (WL), while God himself is surrounded by obedient creatures. Jesus the incarnated Word truly reflected the Father's speaking will, but our ideas should be held as suspect. Remember, we are not yet perfected! That is why when WL departed from the safety of the fellowship of the flock, and became ensnared by his own logic, it became a source of uncorrected error for many. It only mattered to us that "Bruther Lee said..." and that was held as the content of reality itself. Likewise, my ideas on mediatorial agents, of whose service we repentant and becoming-obedient humans are supposed to be entering into, are merely the ideas of a wanna-be. I do not hold them as something to overturn the centuries-old counsel in the flock. They are merely my ideas. But do I see a "lonely God" in the middle of this great turning wheel? Hardly.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
09-15-2013, 11:48 AM
|
#7 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God'
Quote:
Consider how Abraham, the "father" of faith, also sent his servant to a distant land to find a bride for Isaac, his only son, after he was sacrificed on the altar in type. Btw, IIRC, Isaac was about 60 years of age and had not, as yet, started to date. Having not yet read Tomes' article, at first glance it seems to be much ado about nothing. Can anyone pass on to me a "concern" which I do not yet have?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
09-15-2013, 12:34 PM
|
#8 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God'
Quote:
Second, on Adam being alone, that does not mean God was alone. Tomes is right to challenge this analogy. Ohio asks, why is all this fuss necessary over interpretation? I would say because WL departed from the footsteps of the flock. He said that he was being steadfast in following the teachings and fellowship of the apostles, but he was continually coming up with novel twists on the gospel story, saying it was a revelation straight from the throne, and marketing it to the gullible. That's where "Bruther Lee said..." comes in. The only legs this "lonely Triune God" has to stand on are those of Lee. I also speculate, and use my logic/inspiration to "see new things" in the scripture. But we all can and should, and can bring these insights and inspirations into the assembly to be tried and (often) either tossed aside or modified and pruned. The real story behind "Local Church Discussions" is that WL was lonely in Christianity so he wanted to create a "Witness Lee Duplication Center" where assorted lackeys, hacks, and sycophants would gather on his every word; the contents of his imagination would be held as manna from heaven itself. That is I think what Tomes is questioning. That we would hold one man's opinion as the equivalent of "truth". As 'unregistered' recently wrote, "the Truth is a Person [and that Person ain't Witness Lee]."
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
09-15-2013, 12:52 PM
|
#9 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God'
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
09-15-2013, 02:59 PM
|
#10 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God'
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
09-15-2013, 08:15 PM
|
#11 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
I have been told on occasion that my posts are predictable, following a prescribed pattern, and I have to basically agree. There is a background or a context as to why I post as I do. Things motivate me, and I have, on many occasions, explained my motives in detail.
I would like to ask Nigel why he posted this article. This is not a challenge, but an honest inquiry. I really like to know what is in the mind of a writer when he composes his piece. My quest over the years has caused me to see through many a document. I think that I was the first to post that the quarantine of Titus Chu was merely a power struggle between two competing factions in the Recovery. Nothing I have ever read has ever disputed that proposition. As in the days of the Brethren, so with us. To understand motivations is important to me. So my question is simple. What bothered Nigel to the point that he would invest the time to write this obviously time-consuming piece about a "lonely God?" How was this leaven to me, a typical LC'er? I would really like to know.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
09-16-2013, 05:17 AM
|
#12 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Quote:
Of course there is "the Bride, the wife of the Lamb", and so forth, but we are here to fight. Don't get distracted by romance or you will end up like David. He should have been in battle but he was at home looking for romance and he espied the wife of Uriah the Hittite. Nuff said. Christ came to destroy the works of Satan (1 John 3:8) and we should follow our Captain (this is a VERY narrow reading but given our present situation and 2,000 year Christian history it should arguably be front and center). Now, what prompted Lee to create his theology? Lee also created something, an idea - expressed as "God was lonely" - and he spoke it at trainings, packaged and sold it on cassette, VCR tape, CD, DVD, book, pamphlet, poster, magazines, coffee mug, calendar, baseball caps, etc. Quote:
Now, to Ohio's question: What prompted Tomes to take on this topic, this particular teaching of Lee, as opposed to some other? Speculation as to Tomes' motives might also be taken with caution, but let me try anyway. I believe the subject of the Trinity has been a challenge for Christianity since the inception of the faith. Certainly it was an affront to the Jews, to have a "co-equal power in heaven" with the one True God Jehovah. The Christians, said the Jews, have two Gods (I am leaving aside the Holy Spirit for the moment). See for example the excellent book "Two Powers in Heaven: Early Rabbinical Reports on Christianity and Judaism" by Alan Segal. And of course the "One Spirit" (Eph 4:4) only muddles up the matter further. Enter Lee. I remember reading his "Tritheism, Modalism, and the Pure Word of God" and found it neither thought-provoking nor vivifying. And I was a "true believer"! I suspect a lot of local churchers are also not "sold" on all of Lee's ideas. They are, rather, "sold" on the local ground and they respected Lee as the unquestioned leader of the enterprise, so they put up with his homespun theology because "it's the church". I know I did. Tomes is going after this, and showing that the emperor has no clothes. Lee's theology was weak in many areas, and his theology of the Trinity probably hovered at the fringes of orthodoxy, if not beyond. I remember a few years ago getting into it online with some Lee-ites who wrote an essay titled, "The Son is the Father". I replied, "Why then is He called the Son?" They replied, "Jesus said 'I and the Father are one'", and I wrote, "Jesus said, 'You shall all be one, even as I am one with the Father'. Does that mean therefore that I am You and You are me?" Lee blurred the distinctions. In the Gospels I see the Father sending the Son, not vice versa. Likewise I see the Son now sending the Spirit. I rarely talk about the Trinity because I don't understand it, but Lee pretended he did, and in a way different from "poor Christianity" (naturally) and Tomes is not out of line in pointing out how egregiously weak and contradictory Lee's ideas were in this regard. Lastly, why do we write? Why do we spend time commenting on Tomes' commentaries on Lee's commentaries on the Bible? For myself, I like to write because it helps me think. I like it when Ohio or OBW points out my conceptual "feet of clay". I need that today, to intrude on my thinking, before I go too far. I don't want to stand at the Bema needing correction. I'd rather get it while I am in church. Tomes is right in challenging LSM's ideas on the Trinity. "Brother Lee said" no longer cuts it.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|||
|
|
|
|
09-16-2013, 05:42 AM
|
#13 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Quote:
But usually I am using the discussion as an 'airing out' opportunity for my own ideas. I admit to that. But again, that to me is what 'church' should at least partly be about. But if you can say "God was alone in heaven" before the creation of man I really don't know what Bible you are reading. He is not called "YHWH Elohim tzevaot" or "YHWH Elohim sabaoth" for nothing.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
09-16-2013, 11:51 AM
|
#14 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Renton, Washington
Posts: 3,508
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Pondering what led brother Nigel to write this article I ask as a typical LCer who was Witness Lee to you? Was Witness Lee the modern day apostle Paul whose words was equal to scripture? Or was Witness Lee a gifted minister; just another one of God's servants? As I read brother Nigel's article it seemed to come from the angle that Lee's spoken ministry was received as being on par with scripture. This coincides to Nigel's previous article which indicates Lee's spoken ministry was never checked against what the Bible says. |
|
|
|
|
|
09-16-2013, 03:00 PM
|
#15 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Personally I would like to see Nigel address the "weightier matters" such as Deputy Authority, which strikes the axe at the root of that dying tree, including both the Anaheim and Cleveland cultivars. But ... I still have to finish his excellent paper, and as one who has had his yard completely tunneled under by star-nosed moles, I know firsthand what huge mountains those molehills really are.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
09-16-2013, 03:39 PM
|
#16 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
09-17-2013, 06:20 AM
|
#17 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
09-17-2013, 07:23 AM
|
#18 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Quote:
(Psa 69:6) Let not them that wait on thee, O Lord GOD of hosts, be ashamed for my sake: let not those that seek thee be confounded for my sake, O God of Israel. (Isa 1:24) Therefore saith the Lord, the LORD of hosts, the mighty One of Israel, Ah, I will ease me of mine adversaries, and avenge me of mine enemies: (Isa 22:5) For it is a day of trouble, and of treading down, and of perplexity by the Lord GOD of hosts in the valley of vision, breaking down the walls, and of crying to the mountains. (Isa 22:12) And in that day did the Lord GOD of hosts call to weeping, and to mourning, and to baldness, and to girding with sackcloth: (Isa 22:14) And it was revealed in mine ears by the LORD of hosts, Surely this iniquity shall not be purged from you till ye die, saith the Lord GOD of hosts. (Jer 2:19) Thine own wickedness shall correct thee, and thy backslidings shall reprove thee: know therefore and see that it is an evil thing and bitter, that thou hast forsaken the LORD thy God, and that my fear is not in thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts. (Jer 46:10) For this is the day of the Lord GOD of hosts, a day of vengeance, that he may avenge him of his adversaries: and the sword shall devour, and it shall be satiate and made drunk with their blood: for the Lord GOD of hosts hath a sacrifice in the north country by the river Euphrates. (Jer 49:5) Behold, I will bring a fear upon thee, saith the Lord GOD of hosts, from all those that be about thee; and ye shall be driven out every man right forth; and none shall gather up him that wandereth. (Jer 50:25) The LORD hath opened his armoury, and hath brought forth the weapons of his indignation: for this is the work of the Lord GOD of hosts in the land of the Chaldeans. (Jer 50:31) Behold, I am against thee, O thou most proud, saith the Lord GOD of hosts: for thy day is come, the time that I will visit thee. (Amo 9:5) And the Lord GOD of hosts is he that toucheth the land, and it shall melt, and all that dwell therein shall mourn: and it shall rise up wholly like a flood; and shall be drowned, as by the flood of Egypt. There are more references in Isaiah, but I gave a good sample. In the verses above "Lord" is ruler or king, "GOD" is JHWH the ever-existant one, and "hosts" is, variously, His kingdom, army, family, and/or house.* However translated or understood, it seems clear that there is a rather large multitude with Him: God is not certainly not alone. For NT references see e.g. Matthew 16:27 "For the Son of Man is going to come in his Father's glory with his angels, and then he will reward each person according to what they have done." Matthew 24:30 "And then the sign of the Son of Man will appear in the sky, and then all the tribes of the earth will mourn, and they will see the Son of Man coming on the clouds of the sky with power and great glory. 31 "And He will send forth His angels with a great trumpet and they will gather together His elect from the four winds, from one end of the sky to the other." Notice that Matthew 24:30 has 'glory and power', and 16:27 has 'glory and angels', i.e. the 'heavenly host(s)'. God expresses His great power through nearly unlimited mediatorial agents who obey Him. And notice that 'glory and power' in 24:30 is immediately followed by 'sending forth His angels' in v. 31. The Roman centurian recognized this and gave the analogy of his own authority under Caesar, and Jesus marvelled at his faith, and said no one in Israel had such insight (See Luke 7:7-9). Now, some may feel I am conflating "angels" (plural) with "the power of the Spirit" (singular), and so forth. But I am merely trying to make one simple point here: God was and is not some lonely bachelor pining for a companion who understands him. To characterize the narrative thusly is to fundamentally misread the God presented to us in the pages of the Bible. Jesus didn't present God thus, nor did Moses nor the prophets. Only Lee's insight brought us this so-called revelation. I believe that it was an attempt to create novelty for the masses in order to induce them to pull out their wallets. There is an openness in the various readings of the Trinity, and of God enthroned among the "heavenly courts", which allow a number of readings, on various levels, of what we are seeing. In other words, you can take all the references and put together various composite pictures to explain to yourself (and others) what you are seeing here through the words of scripture. I think we were comforted by Lee's reading because a) it was simple and b) he delivered it with certainty, which dispelled any vagueness or possible contradiction. In a sense his interpretation took the inherent tension out of the story, which tension I believe is necessary for our creation of new spiritual experiences. As alwayslearning put it well, in Lee's story God becomes "cheapened", a mere commodity, or formula, to be dispensed to us by someone's ministry (assuming we are obedient to said ministry). Just go to the meetings, loudly repeat the outlines and banners, and "go with the flow" from Big Brother in Headquarters, and you will get more God in your being. *If you think I am conflating "armies" with "family/household" look at Abraham for example. With what army did Abraham go forth to fight the kings who had captured Lot? Genesis 14:14 calls them "318 men of his household". Yes, the narrative does make distinctions between "his trained men", "goods", "relatives", "women", and "other people" (v.16), and in all this Abraham remains "childless" (15:2), but is Abraham alone? Definitely not.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
09-17-2013, 08:47 AM
|
#19 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Quote:
In the early days of his ministry, Lee prospered by introducing new concepts to the USA, most of which came from Nee. It appears like this became a necessary obsession of his, since I often heard a long litany of "new light" teachings which together composed the "recovered" truths. Lee had to be unique in his ministry to "prove" that he was truly worthy of MOTA status. Today we look back on all his exclusive teachings with suspicion, and rightly so, since so many are deemed to be leaven, or worse. Aron, I do hear all you have shared about that huge and diverse population in the heavens, but if Jesus truly will marry the church bride one day, then from a certain point of view, prior to that time, could He not facetiously be considered a "lonely bachelor." Ministers in general take quite a bit of liberty in their spoken ministry, yet much of what they say does not rise to the level of "official" church teachings recorded in books. Like I said, I still have to finish Tomes' article, and, of course, all those great footnotes.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
09-17-2013, 09:14 AM
|
#20 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
In reading this article and following the discussions here I can't help but be reminded of what Ravi Zacharias has explained numerous times - That although the Trinity is a mystery, He has shown Himself to be a "being in relationship"....not only in relationship with his created beings, but the three of the Godhead are in relationship with each other. If we see this aspect of the Trinity then we can easily see that God has never been lonely. Please follow Zacharias very carefully in this short video and I think you will catch what I'm saying:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zx1kwRWFDwI Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
09-17-2013, 01:49 PM
|
#21 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Quote:
And as I said, I usually drag whatever thing I'm reading at the moment into unrelated topics. But it has recently impressed itself upon me, what an incredibly diverse, amazing, and wonderful place heaven is. There's a lot going on! Interesting stuff! Remember when Elisha prayed and Gehazi's eyes opened. Wow! What a sight! (2 Kings 6:17) And central to Jesus' prayer, the phrase "as in heaven, so on earth" (Matt. 6:10) tells me we should be paying attention to things "as it is in heaven." It almost seemed to me (yes, I oversimplify) that Lee waved it all off with, "Well, there's going to be a new heaven and new earth and the New Jerusalem will descend out of heaven to the new earth. So heaven isn't really that important to us." Or as BP would say, "We don't care about that." To be presented with a "lonely bachelor God" seems to be deliberately ignoring so much of what scripture has presented to us about God, that it is more than simplistically facetious, it is farcical. I don't begrudge Lee his opinion, nor his vision, but to pare down the marvelous complex revelation to his characterizations, which then are peddled off as "God's speaking in this age", is really selling us short. But perhaps I over react.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
09-17-2013, 01:57 PM
|
#22 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Quote:
And thanks for the link to the video.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
09-17-2013, 02:29 PM
|
#23 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' - LSM's Oxymoron TOMES
Quote:
I approach LC forums from the vantage that someone got hurt, and necessity demands our actions here. That's why I brush off the meany and harmless things at LSM, especially after visiting a number of other congregations in town. While I agree that the "lonely bachelor" teaching is not worthy of Lee's elevated MOTA status, neither does it seem yet to me to deserve an article of its own. But, looking back, I have been wrong far too often to tightly hold any of my initial positions. I often consider those items of the Recovery which were instrumental in damaging us, gripping us in fear, keeping us from sound thinking, etc. For example, I would love to see a scholarly paper about the appointment and control over the elders, because Recovery leaders have used their distorted teachings and practices to damage many dear brothers and whole churches. But perhaps I too over react.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
03-22-2015, 04:12 PM
|
#24 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Witness Lee held Unitarian views.Who knew? 
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
03-22-2015, 09:28 PM
|
#25 |
|
Member
Join Date: Mar 2015
Posts: 56
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
The concept of Trinity itself is an oxymoron. It cannot be humanly understood and some things of God does not have to make logical sense for us.
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2015, 12:38 PM
|
#26 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
A belated response from an old time poster
Tom McNaughton's passing brought me back to this site where I discovered Nigel's article here. I read this article and have a strong response in my soul. Apologies to any posters who have already made this point (though a quick perusal did not reveal any to me).
My response is John 12:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. "It remains alone." What is "it" here? Christ, obviously, for he was referring to himself symbolically as a grain of wheat, a seed in this case which will grow into a new plant. So what Jesus is saying is that, unless he is willing to pass through death, he, as God, will remain alone. The word "remains" shows us that God has been alone in some sense from day one. And what sense is this? Nigel asks this important question repeatedly. The answer must be in his divinity. I'm surprised Nigel didn't discover this very crucial verse in John, one that Witness Lee spoke on many times. It surely, clearly, unambiguously reveals that at least in some sense, God has experienced loneliness. Lee may have been guilty of the sin of un-orthodoxy, but he certainly was not guilty of the sin of being unscriptural. Who knows, maybe that dancing trio that those modern theologians have rediscovered wishes he had a partner on the dance floor. |
|
|
|
|
04-19-2015, 06:42 PM
|
#27 |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
So good to hear from you SpeakersCorner! Your keen wit and interesting posts are greatly missed! Don't make yourself so scarce my brother. Your "dancing trio" imagery is a perfect example of your wit! We need more of that kind of stuff on this forum. There are too many stick-in-the-muds like me (and other unmentionable, highly esteemed people) and not enough people like you.
Now with the pleasantries out of the way.....I couldn't disagree with your assessment of Nigel's polemic any more. I say this not having read through it in quite a while, but I must say that I don't remember any poster bringing up your thoughtful but somewhat misguided response using John 12:24. The context of the metaphor of this verse clearly points us towards being buried in death and raised in resurrection. (cf: The apostles Paul's familiar discourse to the Corinthians in 1Cor 15). The "alone" term in this verse has nothing to do with Jesus Christ entering into some state of loneliness, but rather into a state of death and burial ("unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies"). I frankly don't remember hearing or reading Witness Lee pushing the metaphor of this verse to the conclusion you have related here, but I wouldn't doubt it for a second. He was very prone to stretch biblical metaphors and allegories to the point of nonrecognition. I would beg to differ that the concept of God being lonely is scriptural. (and I believe that Nigel did so as well) After all, God's first declaration of self-identity to Moses was "I am that I am", which also could be rendered "I will be what I will be". The Hebrew here is so rich and deep in meaning that scholars have written whole papers (maybe books?) on this one declaration, but one would not need to be a scholar to get the drift that God is perfectly, and thus literally, complete in himself. He needs nothing else - literally nothing else. The Father loves the Son and the Son loves the Father. "I am in the Father and the Father is in me". God is perfectly and literally complete in himself. Man was created as part of his perfect eternal purpose, not to "make him complete" as the teachings of Lee imply. God did not say "it is not good that I should be alone, I will make me a helper suitable for me". No, Eve was to be a helper for the man he created, who indeed did have a need. I remember quite well the words to a Local Church song back in the 70s (maybe didn't make it to the new hymnal) O I’m a man— I’m the meaning of the universe; Yes, I’m a man— I’m the meaning of the universe. God made me such, I am so much; I’m the center and the meaning of the universe. https://www.hymnal.net/en/hymn/h/1293 No, we are NOT the center and the meaning of the universe. That would be God, and ONLY God himself. And yes, I'm sure some of you can pull out some message where Witness Lee taught that God was the center and the meaning of the universe, but he ALSO taught that man was as well, and that is why this person wrote these words and this is why it was a very popular song in the Local Church for many years. Actually the rest of this song is very good. It speaks of Christ being the meaning of life, the church being the expression of Christ, the local church being the real family life and the call to tell the world of these things. Too bad it started off with such an unbiblical and really harmful concept of man being the meaning of the universe. PS: Don't worry about responding to my post as much as telling us all about what has been going on with you all these years. It has been almost SIX YEARS since we heard from you. I trust that God has been gracious and merciful to you. and we all want to hear about it! Give us an update!
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
04-19-2015, 08:27 PM
|
#28 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: A belated response from an old time poster
Hi SC!
Welcome back.. I agree with UntoHim...it's been way too long since we have heard from you. I am here off and on... I will leave for a while and my curiousity brings me back. To the question of John12:24 unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone but if it dies, it bears much fruit... I always thought and still do that the scripture goes hand in hand with Galatians 2:20. It is no longer I that live because "I" have been crucified. It is Christ Who lives in me. Also through baptism, I have been immersed and buried with Christ in His death. And have resurrected in Newness of Life. My soul is that grain of wheat that has fallen into the earth to die . What was it that Paul said?? He plants, Apollos waters but God causes the growth? And you know what is interesting about that scripture you pointed out that I JUST SAW? In Ephesians 1:4, Paul who had this supernatural encounter and connection with God discovered and tells us that before the foundation of the world GOD CHOSE US. So we actually did fall from heaven to the earth to die and rise again!  If you think of it 'strange' that I claim Paul had a supernatural encounter and connection with God, remember, Paul was not a follower of Jesus Christ. I don't even know where he was when Jesus was ministering! I wonder if he was a young man cooped up somewhere learning the Torah and the Tanach?? In any case, Paul had a supernatural experience because he says "whether in the body or out of the body I do not know" but was caught up to the third heaven. (2 corinthians 12:2-4) 'Lucky' Paul! I have had prophetic dreams and one vision but I have never been caught up to the third heaven like he was ! No wonder his life was radically changed!Anyway, these scriptures, John 12:2 4, Galatians 2:20 and Ephesians 1:4 are very real to me. I feel this has really what has happened to me. But while it may have happened when I truly became born again, it continues to be a process because if it wasn't I would not ask the Lord to cleanse my dirty soul from time to time with His Precious Blood. On that note, I look forward to Dancing with the TRIO at the Wedding Feast! God bless you SC ! Carol Quote:
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
04-19-2015, 09:06 PM
|
#29 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
In a nutshell for whatever it's worth, God the Father is like the 'SUN' in our solar system. We can't even look at the SUN for more than a glance. That Brightness is the GLORY of GOD. In the SUN is the Father, the Son (WORD) and His Spirit. The SUN gives us Light (Jesus) and His Spirit gives us Warmth. Jesus is the Light of the World and we get this LIGHT from His Spirit Who opens our eyes to understand what God says. God has also penned His WORD on paper so we could become familiar with some of His History, man's history and instructions for living. But without the Holy Spirit revealing Father God and Jesus Christ, God's Word to us, the scriptures are dead and boring. I have learned to talk to the THREE in ONE. Sometimes I address God as 'Holy Spirit'. Sometimes I address my concerns to 'Father God'. And I also talk/pray/fellowship with King Jesus, our Lord and Savior. I will tell you this: When I began to address God the Holy Spirit, I suddenly got closer to the LORD and HE revealed more of HIMSELF to me that words do no justice in trying to explain. God bless you and may we all meet in the Holy City New Jerusalem to the Glory and Praise of Almighty God. :-) Carol
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 01:16 AM
|
#30 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2015
Location: Greater dayton ohio
Posts: 36
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Pretty hard for me to think of the holy trinity as lonely. Being alone is not the same as lonely. There is a clear distinction between those two terms.
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 05:16 AM
|
#31 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: A belated response from an old time poster
Quote:
On the back end of the equation is "being alone". Elijah and Enoch went into heaven but they went alone. The incarnated Son, through His substitutionary death, brought forth many brothers. He became the First-born of many brothers. So He went from being the Only Begotten Son to the First, the Chief, of many, many sons. This is not the same thing as the "lonely God". Enoch and Elijah went into heaven singularly (where God was not alone before nor after their entry), but only Jesus Himself took captivity captive, and led forth the prisoners of death, and back to the Father's house. Jesus was abiding in the Father's presence continually, while on earth, in the flesh of sin, but He abode alone. But His death destroyed the barrier, not only between Jews and Greeks, but between God and man. Yet the "lonely bachelor God" is not an appropriate metaphor, poetic or not. The Father's house had many rooms preceding the death of Jesus, and it had even more following the death, resurrection, and ascension of Jesus. God was not some wandering homeless guy before Jesus' death and resurrection. That's what they teach in the LCs now, so I hear. "God is homeless. Let's build His church". God is "LORD Sabaoth", Lord of Hosts. The scripture repeatedly assures us that God is neither alone, nor lonely. We, on the other hand, were lost, but now are found. We are now the "many grains" brought forth in resurrection, due to the atoning death of the one grain. We are the "much fruit" borne by the suffering Vine. All of the above, of course, is my subjective opinion, not to be mistaken for "truth" in any of its forms. WL was a wordsmith and I am wordsmithing here, explaining why his particular mental construction doesn't carry any water with me. And John 12:24 doesn't help it at all.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 05:26 AM
|
#32 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: A belated response from an old time poster
Quote:
They may trot out 20 verses to show the "homeless God" living in a tent, looking for something permanent. But they confuse heaven with earth. On earth God is ignored and rejected and Satan is at home; on earth God looks for a place, yes. But in heaven, God's throne is secure. Why ignore the second fact to try to make something of the first? It leads to imbalance, with people rushing about hither and yon, seeking the latest "flow" to rescue the poor homeless bachelor God. None of which is even remotely true. Jesus prayed, "As in heaven, so on earth". Yet the LCs typically ignore heaven, because WL saw the New Jerusalem coming down out of heaven from God. So apparently God isn't interested in heaven anymore, and so the LCs teach, "We don't care for heaven. Christianity cares for heaven but we don't". Etc. Imbalanced.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 06:11 AM
|
#33 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 07:18 AM
|
#34 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: A belated response from an old time poster
Quote:
Jesus as a man, died for us. As a man, He cried out, "My God, My God, why have You forsaken Me?" This is why I like the precis used by Lee et. al. -- our God passed thru death in the man Jesus. How else can it be explained? The Bible, on the positive side, ends with a marriage -- the marriage of the Lamb is come! This is the same "Lamb" which is sitting on the throne, at the right hand of the Father. This is the end of the story folks! Apparently this marriage ranks fairly high on God's "bucket list." Prior to that, the Lamb was unmarried. Was the Lamb at all "lonely" before His marriage? Didn't the Lamb have human feelings, being made like us in all respects? Perhaps we'll never know before that time. I just can't see what harm this creates in the children of God, when they look forward to that eternal wedding, thinking that their Jesus is just a little excited about the event, perhaps even a little "lonely."
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 07:19 AM
|
#35 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
The lonely God
Thanks for the kind words, UntoHim and CountMeWorthy. I quit posting many moons ago because I didn't like what it was doing to me.
I stand by my verse, John 12:24, as a rock solid proof verse that, at least in some sense God has experienced loneliness. I don't think it's like we experience it exactly but Jesus did have a kind of wistfulness in his voice when he talked about having no place to lay his head. A conversation with a young lady a number of years ago opened my eyes to something concerning God's lack (stay with me on this one). She, a rich girl with a rich daddy, was seeking to validate herself so she traveled to India on her own and lived for a month there trying to live small and identify with the poor of the world as well as learn a little TM. She was fresh back from the journey, full of excitement and a newfound sense of self-worth. She also was back in her rich world, enjoying her daddy's credit cards. I didn't want to burst her bubble but I did tell my wife afterwards, "Poverty is the one thing money can't buy." That woke me up to God's problem. He has everything except poverty ... frailty. He cannot buy it. We have frailty, failure even, in truckloads. So we have something God lacks. This makes us attractive to him. By coming as a man, through our fallen lineage, he put on frailty. He did not try to cheaply buy it; he went to India, so to speak, to die, not to return home after a brief, selfie-snapping, self-worth validating mission trip. And this is how I see the lonely God: as one who would cherish our frailty, even marry it. We bring to God the one thing he couldn't bring into himself alone. I may have shared that experience years back. If so, I apologize. But it has really stayed with me. |
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 07:45 AM
|
#36 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: in Spirit & in Truth
Posts: 1,363
|
Re: A belated response from an old time poster
Quote:
Elijah was picked up in a chariot with horses and when Jesus returns with His Armies He comes on a WHITE HORSE as do His Armies. Heaven is not boring. I do not believe for one second we are going to be in 'church services' singing and Praising the Lord. We will be doing that all the time while having FUN and learning new things we never could here on earth due to our sin nature. The Holy City New Jerusalem might be la cream de la cream but Heaven is HUGE and all is GOOD up there! Quote:
I went on to explain that before Jesus died and resurrected, their were two gulfs in the middle of the earth. (Luke 16:19-31) Hell and Paradise were there. But when Jesus died and went to Paradise, He unlocked the door so when He resurrected and went to HEAVEN, the many of saints that were in Paradise resurrected with HIM. Matthew 27:52-53: and the graves were opened; and many bodies of the saints which slept arose, and came out of the graves after his resurrection, and went into the holy city, and appeared unto many. Jesus ASCENDED meaning UP He went and I believe He took the resurrected saints with HIM even though there is no scripture backing up my thoughts. But a person dies only once. Anyway... this LCr simply could not wrap the TRUTH about heaven around their spirit because it was not what Lee taught. Go figure!
__________________
Watch ye therefore, and pray always, that ye may be accounted worthy to escape all these things that shall come to pass, and to stand before the Son of man. (Luke 21:36) |
||
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 08:02 AM
|
#37 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
I think Tomes's point was that Lee left out that God could not be lonely in the full sense because the Father always had the Son. I think the whole question comes down to what we mean when we say God "lacks" something. It's quite an ontological idea. It can't mean there is shortage in himself, because he is the originator of everything. Only he can, ultimately, meet his own needs, if he has any. A guy on a desert island may lack a shelter, but it's not a lack in himself, he just needs to build it. So actually he is the resource by which he meets his needs. Except he didn't create the trees and rocks he uses to make shelter. In God's case, he is the originator of everything, only he can get the ball rolling to produce everything that comes back to him. So when you say God "lacks" something you always have to remember that he does everything to meet the "lack." He didn't find something outside himself to meet it. He conceived it inside himself and made it. I think this goes back even to the Trinity. The Father was never alone because he had the Son. This is what the lonely God theory neglects. But actually the Bible says the Son was begotten, so even the Son came out of God. I believe the Son is basically God's self-image, the way he sees himself, as another Person. So God's relationship with the Son is in some sense his relationship with himself. So when the Son died, the Father didn't die, but his self-image did. In that sense God experienced "dying to his self," as he asks us to every day. My point is not deep ontology but just that God is the originator of everything. So his "lack" if any should be seen as something he and only he can meet himself. Who else can do it? Us? Well, he made us. He's the Alpha and Omega. We can't come up with anything he didn't think of first. Still.. Listen to I am Not Alone by Kari Jobe |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 08:20 AM
|
#38 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
 I understand your feeling though. It helps me to just present my ideas, and then not get too upset when they get shredded and I get accused of harboring the deadly Lee-bola virus. Without a few decisive self-defense maneuvers, some of these beloved posters can leave a few bruises, and leave me with gnawing heart-burn.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 08:27 AM
|
#39 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: A belated response from an old time poster
Quote:
Perhaps I simply don't find the narrative compelling. Perhaps WL or someone got there first and I am jealous, and pooh-pooh the idea. Perhaps. But at least I can say this: the narrative presented is somewhat skewed, to make the tale work. The "lonely God" narrative seems to skip the teeming courts of heaven. It oversimplifies to dramatize (I know, I know, I do it too. We all do). So perhaps I over-react, and if so I apologize.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 08:30 AM
|
#40 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: A belated response from an old time poster
Quote:
Go figure.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 08:42 AM
|
#41 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
I also have been very impressed by the "stranger in a strange land" theme. Like the parable of the man of noble birth who went to a far country to get for himself a kingdom. We, here, arguably, are that supposed to be that kingdom. We are the proverbial "far country", and yes Jesus arguably came here for His people and His bride. But He was always connected to the Father. He could exult even when He was desperately alone, physically. He was never unconnected. And this connection isn't to a lonely Father in heaven. This is to the LORD Sabaoth. I don't think that really fit well into the post-Protestant mindset so we instead invented the lonely God. "I am never alone. The Father is always with Me." The ones who were alone were the 12. He died for them, to bring them back to the Father's house. And that goes for all of us, those who would believe into His name. There is surely no greater love than that. So perhaps I am simply trying to balance the narrative. Or put my own personal twist on it. Who knows. Thank you for posting and I apologize if I poured cold ice water into my reply. I always enjoyed your posts in the past, and I'm sure that many of the readers of this forum preferred them to mine! We shouldn't make ideas into personality contests, and I've posted so much (too much?) that perhaps I get territorial, and/or argumentative. We didn't come to this planet to cross swords with each other. Anyway, I never liked the "lonely bachelor God" idea, and still don't. But that may be something of my personality being manifested. ("Oh my God! No! A personality! No!")
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 09:44 AM
|
#42 | |
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Here is an excerpt from the conclusion in Nigel Tomes' paper:
Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 09:48 AM
|
#43 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
But we should examine the idea that if God doesn't have something it means he lacks it in the sense of needing it. God lacks sin, but doesn't need it. So the question becomes, if he "lacks" something, why would he need it? Which brings us to frailty. Frailty in and of itself is not something positive. Frailty is only "good" when it pushes us to rely on a stronger source, ultimately which is God ("When I'm weak, I'm strong.") So then why would God need to experience frailty? The only reason solely for himself would be to experience his need for God. But he is God. I don't think he would do it just for the novelty of the experience. The other reason to experience it would be for our sake. So that he by being like us can better meet our needs. And in fact, this is exactly what the Bible says (Heb 4:15). As Jesus God experienced all the frailty he "needed" to. Ultimately it was for us he did it though, not just so he could have the experience of something he couldn't have otherwise. Though it must be said that in order to completely meet our needs he did have to experience something he couldn't have experienced otherwise. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 10:17 AM
|
#44 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
For some strange reason, our God wants to marry mankind, not just die for us. If He didn't like sin, then why didn't He just propose in the garden? He may surely be a holy and righteous God, but I can't help but think that He has done little to protect His good name. I think somehow God wants "sin" in His lineage, at least the redeemed kind, and lots of it. I marvel that forever on the throne sits the Lamb, imagine that, a Lamb on the throne, who died, no doubt, for our sins, yet remains a Lamb on the throne nevertheless, and it is this Lamb who gets married.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 10:29 AM
|
#45 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
Perhaps you got stumbled with this word "lonely" being associated with God. Perhaps you just hate the notion because Lee used it. Perhaps, perhaps, etc. Don't you agree that Jesus is God? and He walked on earth as a man? and never married? and died and resurrected and was enthroned? and this same Jesus is the Lamb on the throne who will one day marry? and up until this time He remains a bachelor, and unmarried? So then would you agree that Jesus is a bachelor God-man, who is currently unmarried, and therefore, regarding His future bride, is now somewhat alone?
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 10:40 AM
|
#46 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
I think God's ultimate goal regarding sin is to get his creation to the point where free will exists but sin does not happen. God won't just turn off free will in eternity future, we will just all always choose not to sin. The only way that can happen is by creation learning the consequences of sin firsthand to a sufficient extent--not only by what it did to us, but also by what it cost our Creator. That's what's happening in time. As apologists say, this world may not be the best possible world, but it's the best way to the best possible world. Free will is necessary for true love to exist. The problem with free will is, history shows, it can lead to sin. First some angels, then us. Free will needs to be tempered by a process of learning how to use it. That's what creation is passing through now. So God "needs" sin to teach to avoid it, and to show exactly how he reacts to it, in justice and mercy and everything else. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 11:15 AM
|
#47 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 11:20 AM
|
#48 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: The lonely God
Let me add that I think Lee took the Bride of Christ thing too far. We'll never become Christ's peer. We can be related to him in all kinds of ways. But not as peer. For us to become his peer would require an increase in our cognitive gifts to infinite levels. Do you think that is going to happen?
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 11:43 AM
|
#49 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 11:58 AM
|
#50 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Welcome back SpeakersCorner.
Sorry this forum was disagreeable for you in the past. And for my part in it if any. The verse you quote from John has always confused me. John 12:24 Truly, truly, I say to you, unless a grain of wheat falls into the earth and dies, it remains alone; but if it dies, it bears much fruit. I grew up on farms. Seeds don't fall to the earth and die. Seeds fall to earth and come alive. I go to the co-op here and buy seeds. They are in a package and are as dead as they are ever gonna be. Sometimes I take seeds and freeze them over winter. They too are as dead as they will ever be (unless burned). But when I plant them they don't die they come to life. That's why that verse has always confused me. Not that I don't get the metaphor ... but it can't be taken literally.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 12:05 PM
|
#51 |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
I find this "God needs us because he is lonely" to be somewhat contrived. In Nigel's article, he quotes Lee as asserting that when he said that it was not good for the man to be alone, it was because he was also alone.
Huh? Why this assertion? I know that there are some who will assert that we can now read old scripture and find metaphor. But the metaphors that we know to be there are as we know something that is eventually stated as true, and then realize that there is a pattern leading toward it. Or types and metaphors about it in the earlier writing. But the interpreted metaphor should not be the source of our conclusion. On what basis is Lee's declaration that God was lonely and needs man true? Surely not just because God said it about man. Sort of like when my grandmother would ask someone if they wanted something that was right in front of them. That was her backward way of asking for it herself. God is not so strange as that. Maybe it is that the descriptions of the church as a bride is the metaphor rather than the literal. If in this life, marriage is to become "one flesh," then maybe the marriage to the bride is to restore man to his unhindered unity with God as existed before the fall. I don't say this to be contrary to Lee. I say this because the metaphorical bride and wedding feast is just that — metaphor. And what is a meta for? (over-stated pun intended) It is to describe something else. A metaphor is not the truth that wags reality. It is the picture which describes some aspect of reality by reference to something that it actually is not. It seems that looking to the first chapters of Genesis to declare that "not good that the man should be alone" means that God is alone is nothing short of an answer in search of evidence. God's realm is, by choice, everywhere outside of the fallen state of man. He is the ruler of everything else. And he started as the ruler of man. But man could choose to reject that authority and did so. Due to God's restraint, he is excluded from earth. Through our obedience, he has a place on earth. Upon the restoration of man, he is once again ruler of all. Some will assert that God is always ruler of all. And that is true. But he has also relinquished some rule in time. Not in a way in which he is impotent. But in a way in which he is self-restrained. He gave us the option of obedience or death. And our ancestors chose death. And we each do it in our own lives. But we also have the opportunity to choose life. And with that choosing comes a reuniting with God, eventually to the extent that it is as it was before the fall. But we are busy trying to figure out how the sea will turn to blood and how this square (in 2D) or pyramid-like (in 3D) city will come down to earth, and who will be the nations relative to the citizens of that city rather than taking the time now to obey (what the literal or metaphorical Adam and Eve did not do) and live. God has a purpose. And it was not to make man the "center and the meaning of the universe." Neither was it to cure God's own loneliness. Both of those make man into . . . well . . . the center and the meaning of the universe. And we like that. We like be exalted. But I can't find it to be true. Just asserted as such.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 04:47 PM
|
#52 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
Quote:
But there is a caveat in all this. Satan wants us to look away from God, and so these metaphors become alternate realities that consume our desire. We look at the "radiant bride", instead of the Bridegroom. We look at the "work", the "move of God", even the "central lane of the move of God(!)" the Bride and the Body, the Holy City, the ministry, the Body of Christ, the "glorious church", can I stop now? Anything to turn from the Savior. These too easily, perhaps instantly, become man-made creations that beguile. No, our attention should be on Jesus alone. I think of the phrase, "I, who speak to you, am He", and then the disciples came and interrupted. She dashed forth and began to loudly and insistently proclaim this One. Not some other thing. One person. All attention, focus is on this One person. As soon as we begin to look at ourselves we copy the mistake that the light-bearer of old made. He began to look at God's creation, instead of God. And then he fell like a flash. In Jesus we may continually "behold and reflect as a mirror" the glorious One. Don't look at yourself - either you'll be ashamed and discouraged, or you'll be puffed up, and lost. The Bible tells of one thing. Not a move, a work, a plan, a destiny. No: the Bible tells us of Jesus Christ. We see nothing else (of course that was the royal "we", but it seemed dramatic. Sorry).
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 05:18 PM
|
#53 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
"The bride eyes not her garment" so the song went. Eventually we did nothing but eye our garment. "I am rich, and sit a queen."
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 07:31 PM
|
#54 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 960
|
Re: The lonely God
Quote:
1 There’s a race for us to run—Hallelujah, And a way for us the race to win. To all those who have begun—Hallelujah, God has spoken, “Look away to Him!” Look away! O look away! Look to Jesus now today! Look away from everything unto Jesus, Look away from everything to Him! 2 Look away from all around—Hallelujah, Look away from all the strife and din; Look away where peace is found—Hallelujah, Look away from everything to Him. 3 Look away from fickle soul—Hallelujah, Look away from failing self within; Look away toward the goal—Hallelujah, Look away from everything to Him. 4 Look away from all the past—Hallelujah, Look away from both the good and sin; To the living One hold fast—Hallelujah, Look away from everything to Him. 5 Look away into His face—Hallelujah, He who’ll finish what He did begin. O what grace to run the race—Hallelujah— We obtain by looking off to Him! The hymn appears to be calling us to look to Jesus. Did Lee get it right here? |
|
|
|
|
|
04-20-2015, 07:44 PM
|
#55 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Lee was off his rocker. Quote:
Thinking man is the center and meaning of the universe is no different. The sensation of my ego makes me feel that I'm the center. But that ego is supposed to be crucified with Christ. Proving, Lee's "old man" was alive and well.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
||
|
|
|
|
04-21-2015, 05:06 AM
|
#56 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Second, we were sold on the idea of the "deputy authority", which was a corollary of the "ground of the church". WN supposedly had recovered the True Church of God, and someone had to be in charge, right? So it was God's current Man of the Hour, who was a humble Chinaman named Lee. So even when he's wrong he's right, or so we told ourselves; WL has God's oracle, and so whenever he opens his mouth a pure stream of unadulterated God flows forth. It is all new creation, with no old creation. Because WL is the "top dog" in the unique move of God on the earth today, the Mota, so whatever he does is God's move. Somehow God positionally covers any residual oldness (of which there isn't any, anyway) because he is today's "Moses." All of which was a bunch of pseudo-spiritual hooey. It was a fig leaf covering a big ugly toad. Quote:
In the old days it was the knuckle bone of St Andrew, in a box. It was the blessed saint so-and-so, who was guiding college students or truck drivers. It was a rosary or a statue or a fountain in Spain which had healing properties. Now it is the "move", the "work", the "body", and so forth. There is a Bride, arguably. Right? We see the imagery, repeatedly, right up to the end. The transformed Bride comes down from heaven, prepared for the Husband. "The Spirit and the Bride say come". What could be clearer, I wonder? But there are problems with going too hard on the metaphor, on the picture. First, the Bride is also the Body. How can a man marry his body? Oh, "they become one". The two become one. Okay... but still the metaphor has limits in explanatory utility. My wife is "one" with me, but not me. I don't marry myself. So it is a picture with limited value; it's not unlimited. This picture must be balanced, trimmed, by other pictures. Second, the Bible also says, "In the resurrection they neither marry nor are given in marriage, but are like the angels in heaven". So we don't marry but we marry, right? Both statements have some limited value. Not unlimited. So don't take any picture too far. Everything needs balance. So God has not been restlessly pacing for eternity, waiting for His Bride, simply because God said in Genesis, "It is not good for man to be alone." That's getting carried away by your own argument, by your idealization, or model, or ideational picture. The main problem, however, is this: we are endangered by looking away from God, to something else. This something may be a spiritual picture with its roots in the sacred text, even repeatedly entwined with the gospel narrative. But that picture, of itself, will quickly become a trap and a snare if we focus on it. The Bride who eyes herself becomes proud, and looks around, and becomes a Harlot. It's that simple, and that nasty. "I saw Satan fall from heaven like lightning". The Bride and the Body as metaphors both live and have existence in relation to the Source, which is the Husband and the Head. As soon as the Bride or Body begin to regard themselves as a thing in and of themselves, they simply become a monstrosity. The Bride and Body only exist in and as much as they retain relations with the Head. And this I argue requires unswerving devotion. Any compromise in attention is simply disastrous. Here is another way to look at it. The servant does something according to the Master's bidding, and the Master says, "Well done. Here is a reward." But the servant replies, "I was only doing what I was supposed to do: what You commanded." The servant doesn't look at what he did, but at what the Master commanded. The servant doesn't know "self", nor "doing", but rather "Master" and "Master commands". He simply has no room in his consciousness for anything else. See e.g. Luke 17:10 "So you also, when you have done everything you were told to do, should say, 'We are unworthy servants; we have only done our duty.'" The LC problem is that they look away from what God tells us to do, which is entirely centered on the person of Jesus Christ, and on to the doing itself. The danger is that we might find ourselves saying, "Master, we did this, we did that", and the Master says, "Go away. I do not know you." Of course I apply this to myself as well. How much of my writing here is vain puffery? I don't know. Perhaps most of it. So I reject it. I look away unto Jesus.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
04-21-2015, 09:57 PM
|
#57 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Bride and body
First of all, hello again to Ohio and Igzy. Also to the others who have welcomed me back. I don't know you as well as Igzy and Ohio. Sorry I didn't respond to your posts. I'm not planning on an extended stay here. As fun as it is to mix it up with you all, I find myself getting too mental when I participate too heavily in forums.
Nigel's article triggered my reaction and I did want to go on record about that. I do believe John 12:24 provides us a window into God's heart. Here he was, incarnated, amongst his creation but not recognized, not understood, not appreciated, and definitely not expanded into humanity other than the one body he inhabited. And he knew that, unless he go to the cross and die, he would remain unexpanded, a solitary God-man. Hence his reflections in this verse. In a way, it's a very sad verse to me. In verse 27 he says, "Now My soul has become troubled; and what shall I say, ‘Father, save Me from this hour’?" Clearly this dying business is difficult for him, as is dying to self difficult for us. But if he doesn't do it, he remains alone. It just seems so achingly clear to me. Is he really a bachelor, courting the country girl? Is there really a wedding at the end of the age culminating in a honeymoon with all its delights? Of course this isn't literal, it must be figurative language. But marriage is the best figure God could come up with, the perfect metaphor. Likewise, the loneliness of God is the perfect extension of the metaphor. Anyone who has missed out on romantic love knows this loneliness ("Eleanor Rigby" comes to mind.) I really don't understand the antipathy so many here feel towards this teaching. Think of it: the Bible begins with a singular couple and ends with a corporate one. In the middle, the very heart of the Bible, is a love poem describing a king wooing a country lass. Truly, marital love must be the perfect metaphor behind what God is doing. Now like most of you, I'm married and I know that there is a certain amount of death that goes into maintaining that relationship. At Tom McNaughton's memorial service his wife Karen said, "Tom and I in getting married were like two semi trucks hitting each other head on." She added that two things kept them together. One, their pursuit of the Lord. The other: they had made a pact that the first one to leave had to take the kids (7 of them). It was very funny. |
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 04:45 AM
|
#58 | |||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
Quote:
But Jesus wasn't alone. He wasn't lonely. He was only alone, singular, as it pertained to the disciples. He needed to bring them to where he was. So death, for him, was the choice. "Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for his friends". Other than that, Jesus was quite connected to God, who's connected to everything. So the image of the lonely bachelor God, somehow hovering behind the narrative, is simply absurd. It's a simplification that doesn't even help a third-grader. It simply misses too much. So I don't like it. Yes, that is antipathy. Sorry, I'll own it. Quote:
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|||
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 06:09 AM
|
#59 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
"Lonely God" syndrome, on the other hand, could help a third grader. It is "a" view of the scripture, rather than "the" simplification you purport it to be. The story of the Song of Songs is a beautiful narrative which adds fresh insight into God's word and His heart of love. Perhaps you missed it while digging thru the verses looking for more weaponry to launch at Lee-land. Now I'm not a huge supporter of LSM on this forum, in fact, I was even asked to sign a waiver when moving my in-law's library of blue and green books, but at times this forum runs out of nits to pick and zooms in on the dandruff. But, what can I say, you have "The Professor" on your side.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 06:52 AM
|
#60 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
Lee also never addressed the implications of a lack in God. Then again Lee never cared about anyone's concerns about what he taught. The bottom line with me is that God is a God of relationships. In fact, he is a relationship. He cares about ours--with him, each other and even ourselves. He has a great relationship with himself, and wants us to have that, too. Lee missed relationships. LCMers are oddly uncomfortable with the word. (Even you dismissed the idea back when.) This shows a problem in their world view and their understanding of God. God isn't a substance to be consumed. He's a person to get to know. If LCMers truly cared about relationships and people, they would easily avoid the problems they've had. It seems odd to me to believe God wants a love affair and then turn around and believe that relationships are some kind of side issue or distraction. But that's how Lee followers think. God is all about how one conscious person relates to another. In its best manifestation that's called love. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 07:08 AM
|
#61 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
Quote:
We'll enjoy you while you remain around ... and will miss you when you're gone SC. Thanks for your thoughts.
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
||
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 08:44 AM
|
#62 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
And to keep your "lonely God" in view, you have to completely ignore, and I mean completely, the OT text, which repeatedly shows Jehovah of Hosts. We were not the only ones made in His image. Quote:
But of course that's merely my opinion. I have 'em, and occasionally wave them around. I'm like that in church, too. I'm the crusty dude in the back, muttering to himself. But I'm in church. They put up with me, and I with them.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 09:34 AM
|
#63 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
So the lesson is God is never lonely because he has always had himself, that is the Son. (By the way, this is not quite the same thing as what Lee meant when he said bluntly "The Father is the Son," but it does mesh with it.) There are two kinds of loneliness. One comes from not being completely comfortable with yourself. God doesn't have that problem. The other comes from wanting to share your life with someone else. God certainly does have this desire. Quote:
|
||
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 10:38 AM
|
#64 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
But it seems you have to reject the finale of the Bible: "The marriage of the Lamb has arrived, and the bride has made herself ready." Mankind could never make this up. Igzy has delineated two kinds of loneliness, and of course the latter is more fitting to God. It helps to explain part of His incentive to endure all that suffering. But feel free to reject anything I post here, especially if it in the least way resembles Lee, kind of like that nasty phrase "experience Christ." It's kind of like a delicious avocado in a guacamole dip, some folks I know just can't find anything good there.
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 12:29 PM
|
#65 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
A brother I respect greatly recently said, Watchman Nee's name was sullied during his lifetime. It was uplifted in his death. Witness Lee's followed a reverse trajectory, exalted in his lifetime (at least by insiders) and made toxic after his death.
It's an interesting observation. I wonder how long the half-life of toxicity will last for Lee. It seems to me a lot of the criticism against his theology is simply a recoil from the ugly side of the LCC experience. But I've noticed a faint thawing in the ice in several venues, including here. Maybe all of us who actually sat in his trainings will have to die before the ice completely melts. At some point someone will discover his theology and treasure it afresh, I predict. |
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 12:36 PM
|
#66 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
One more thing:
Karen McNaughton's line about her and Tom's marriage being like two semis hitting head on seems very much like our "marriage" to the Lord. Really, it is a major crash. It's a miracle any of us survive it, even God. But what a glorious wreck it is. The two drivers, tiny and shaking, emerge from the wrecked trucks, look over the damage, shake hands, and become eternal friends. Jacob and the angel, wrestling all night, ending with a limp and a blessing. Ya gotta love it. Yeah, I'm mixing metaphors but I like it. |
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 02:17 PM
|
#67 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 8,064
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
__________________
Cults: My brain will always be there for you. Thinking. So you don't have to. There's a serpent in every paradise. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 04:32 PM
|
#68 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 04:32 PM
|
#69 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
Quote:
Well you know what happened. I got discouraged and confused and frustrated and gave up. Even gave up on God eventually. I quietly watched the Joyce Meyers videos with them, then brought out the "God's economy" template and they weren't terribly interested. So I gave up. Eventually I got tired of being an unbeliever and wanted God again, and began to return, but more on His terms. I went back to Puddle Jump and sat quietly, and listened. And I listened to my next door neighbor for the first time ever, instead of impatiently waiting for a break in the conversation so that I could insert the "ministry". I listened to the guy at work. I realized that God could meet them where they were - they didn't have to be on "the ground". And I began to function. A little. Then I met someone who told me that Titus Chu rebelled and I came on here and began to post, and eventually I became anti-Lee! Which amuses me. So I'm probably just arguing to hear my own voice (so to speak). I just like painting myself into a corner to see if I can get out of it. But one good thing I do know, is that I'm using my own voice. I went into the LCs because they gave me a voice, but it was WL's voice. I left and parroted the ministry voice in the wilderness of Protestantism, among the daughters of the harlot. So my voice today is a bit argumentative, I'll admit. But the people who got the demons cast out made a nasty sound for a bit, till they got their real voice back. It takes a little time and it may not be pretty. So Thanks for bearing with me.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 04:48 PM
|
#70 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Psalm 73
21 When my heart was grieved and my spirit embittered, 22 I was senseless and ignorant; I was a brute beast before you. 23 Yet I am always with you; you hold me by my right hand. 24 You guide me with your counsel, and afterward you will take me into glory. 25 Whom have I in heaven but you? And earth has nothing I desire besides you. 26 My flesh and my heart may fail, but God is the strength of my heart and my portion forever. 27 Those who are far from you will perish; you destroy all who are unfaithful to you. 28 But as for me, it is good to be near God. I have made the Sovereign Lord my refuge; I will tell of all your deeds Whom have I in heaven but You? This, to me, is Jesus speaking to the Father. And earth has nothing that I desire besides You. Ditto. Those who are far from You will perish. This is Jesus speaking, as wisdom personified. He is crying out in the streets. On earth, Jesus was and is not far from the Father. Even on earth, in the flesh of sin, He was untouched by sin, and spotless. He was always near the Father. To me, there is only one thing to see and that is Jesus with the Father. What of the Holy Spirit, you ask? Well I say that you can't see Jesus with the Father except by the Holy Spirit. If you don't get inspired, you'll be like the Ethiopian eunuch, saying "Who is this one speaking here?" Or you'll be like WL and say, "Pay no attention to that man there. That's just a sinner like you or me". But if the Holy Spirit gives you revelation you'll see the Son with the Father. This is then the anointing, coming and abiding upon you. Jesus said, "When the Spirit comes, you will know. You will know." (Acts 1:8, cf Luke 1:35) What about the Bride, you ask? What about the Body of Christ? I reply that the Bride only has eyes for the Son with the Father. She hears no other voice, and sees no other vision. She is lost amid the rapture of redeeming love, as the song goes. And so forth. Anyway, just food for thought. Maybe tomorrow I'll change my mind and say something else. But that's what I think today. (as Forrest Gump would put it)
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 05:50 PM
|
#71 | ||
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Quote:
For the 10+ years on these forums I have challenged anyone to tell me how the Blended Brothers significantly differ from Witness Lee in teaching OR in practice. No takers. Why? Because the BB's practices - good, bad and in between, all come directly from Witness Lee and his theology/teaching. Lee taught he was the only speaking for God on earth, and the BB's now teach that Lee was the only person speaking for God on earth (hence the One Publication policy), Lee taught that the only way to have growth and sanctification in the Christian life was to follow his person and his work (hence BB's telling LCers that outside of their little sect there are NO great spiritual persons ON EARTH, and that the ONLY PLACE ON EARTH to get sanctified is in The Local Church of Witness Lee) There are many more examples I could give you. The bottom line is the BB's are THE UNDENIABLE FRUIT of the bad theology/teaching of Witness Lee. They are truly his continuation.
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
||
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 05:52 PM
|
#72 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Greater Ohio
Posts: 13,663
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Like Dr. Seuss once quipped, “I meant what I said and I said what I meant.”
__________________
Ohio's motto is: With God all things are possible!. Keeping all my posts short, quick, living, and to the point! |
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 06:28 PM
|
#73 |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Oops, posted to the wrong place.
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 06:32 PM
|
#74 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
|
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 07:08 PM
|
#75 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Sep 2014
Posts: 641
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
I wouldn't be so worried about John 12. If you look at a parallel scripture in Mark 11:22, Jesus uttered these words, "Have faith in God". These were the same words Samuel Chang spoke to several of us. I was inspired at the time by these simple words. Sometimes we over analyze scripture and as you say, "get too mental".
__________________
LC 1969-1978 Santa Cruz, Detroit, Ft. Lauderdale, Miami |
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 07:14 PM
|
#76 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Now, think about that. The board that God used to set me free to himself the LCM calls lawless. What does that tell you? |
|
|
|
|
|
04-22-2015, 09:35 PM
|
#77 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Posts: 273
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
I've been working all afternoon and evening, thinking and rethinking my last post. Was it a cheap shot? I don't know. At any rate, I don't feel good about it so I offer my apology. I realize many of you have moved on past your original departure and view this board as a ministry. Again, I spoke rashly and feel I was especially unfair to UntoHim, who welcomed me back graciously. Please forgive me. SC |
|
|
|
|
|
04-23-2015, 05:12 AM
|
#78 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: DFW area
Posts: 4,382
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
We cannot separate our theology from our practice. But our practice is a window into the value of our theology. However, there are two levels of theology — that which you have argued yourself into thinking is right and which you will argue for, and that which has become true and affects your life. And we often cannot tell the difference between the two. But it shows in our practice. While I will not say that war is immoral, or that there is no sin, when we speak of those &@$*# homosexuals, ISIS insurgents, liberals, illegal aliens, or whatever, we may hold to "love your neighbor as yourself" as theologically true, but it is not the theology we live. And it is therefore not really our theology. We talk like it is, but we don't believe it enough to reject our natural hatred, bigotry, etc., and live like it is. So our practical theology is not what we say is our theology. And many who still speak in that manner study, contemplate, and meditate on God's word. What is true is that our actual theology is never separated from our practice. If our theology is colored with Americanism, we will tend to believe in the ability of anyone to do anything they set their minds to. And some will take it further and believe a prosperity gospel, followed either by self-confirmation when they succeed, or by condemnation when they don't. If your theology is colored with "I'm part of God's best, unlike others" it will show in the way that you look down your nose at your brothers in Christ who do not follow your way. If your theology is all about evangelism, you will focus on "bringing people to Christ" but at the expense of other sound theology. Truth is, we are all part of God's best because we are all part of the body of Christ. And if our theology is mostly mental assent, then we will simply give mental assent to the truth and live in a different manner because we believe something else stronger. In liberalism or conservatism. In money or self determinism. In nationalism or globalism. And on an on. There is an army of pseudo-theologians that now study, contemplate, and meditate on God's word using Lee's overlays and they are convinced that life is about ground, pray-reading, uniformity, and "the unique ministry from the minister of the age." And their living shows it.
__________________
Mike I think . . . . I think I am . . . . therefore I am, I think — Edge OR . . . . You may be right, I may be crazy — Joel |
|
|
|
|
|
04-23-2015, 05:58 AM
|
#79 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
But in the wedding, and the marriage, which involve love, there also involve a committed faithful relationship, in which are "headship" and "obedience". Now imagine we are back in the patriarchal days, and you'll understand the obedience idea better. The danger is that we try for a love affair with Jesus but we miss the obedience part. And in the Charismatic Christian hyper-emotional scene where we shriek "We love You, Jeeeezus!!!" together on Sunday morning this may be a danger. But perhaps I was trying to put hard on the dependent relationship and obedience theme, and ignoring the love theme. I understand that my argument didn't look very attractive to you. So maybe I can clarify, a bit. Israel played the harlot, and went after other Gods. But God wanted her to be betrothed to Him, i.e. to be completely focused on Him, to be a Holy people as He is a Holy God. The God of Israel is not like the gods of the nations, a creation of wood or stone. God is spirit, life, love and we need to escape the fall by being utterly committed to Him and His ways. The law was a marriage covenant. Even though Israel broke it, God in His mercy sent His Son. So marriage, to me, involved the ideas of being demure, chaste, obedient, pliant, as well as romantic love. In the modern age we look for the last but skip all the hard stuff (and I speak for the men as well - we are as bad). That's why we all love to watch the wedding shows on tv now, but the divorce rate remains so high. I just think that the "lonely bachelor God" perhaps is too simplistic, and doesn't do justice to the biblical narrative. It is more of a distraction than an aid. Just my opinion. Sorry for being so sharp in my critiques. Peace.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
|
|
|
|
|
04-23-2015, 06:43 AM
|
#80 | ||
|
Οὕτως γὰρ ἠγάπησεν ὁ θεὸς τὸν κόσμον For God So Loved The World
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,797
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
Quote:
__________________
αὐτῷ ἡ δόξα καὶ τὸ κράτος εἰς τοὺς αἰῶνας τῶν αἰώνων ἀμήν - 1 Peter 5:11 |
||
|
|
|
|
04-23-2015, 09:03 AM
|
#81 | |
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: USA
Posts: 4,330
|
Re: The 'Lonely Triune God' LSM's Oxymoron - TOMES
Quote:
But when something interesting happens, like you returning, I perk up. I've always waited for that one LCM member who will honestly and openly discuss objections to the movement and its teachings and practices. I have yet to meet one who will do it for more than a few posts. Once you pin them down they disappear. It's like clockwork. They say they don't like the death or whatever. But the fact is they don't have answers. LCMers believe what they believe because its their culture. I met three Mormon young men in California last summer. They were wholesome and really the kind of men you'd like your daughter to bring home. I think they were true believers. They just didn't believe Jesus was God. I debated with them to little avail. But later I thought to ask, If we all believe in the same God and Savior, then why is it that you believe that 99% of the believers are wrong about the divinity of Christ and you are right? The answer of course is that they believe they are right because their culture told them they are. The LCM mind works much the same way. Lee is the "best" not because his theology has produced the goods, but because it's the LCM culture to believe it. They hope against hope that he will make a comeback. But it's not going to happen in our western culture of tolerance and multiculturalism. Lee was too exclusive. That makes him radioactive. Add in the scandals, the lawsuits, the excommunications, and you have DOA. Nee was lily white (until recently anyway), but interest in him is fading with time. Thinking Lee will ever be popular is dreaming. And why should he be? Is the point that he be lifted up? If you think he had some good things to share then pass those on and see what kind of reaction you get. But trying to sell Lee as a package is a waste of time. The Great Commission is not about pushing former teachers. PS Thinking that Lee alone has what the world needs and that there is a huge conspiracy of the Devil and everyone else to block it is just plain silly. That's the kind of thing Ayn Rand followers believe. |
|
|
|
|
|
04-29-2015, 05:17 AM
|
#82 | ||
|
Member
Join Date: Jul 2008
Location: Natal Transvaal
Posts: 5,631
|
Re: Bride and body
Quote:
But what of the second? "Wanting to share your life with someone else". Certainly the Father wants to share His house: "I go to prepare a place for you", and "In my Father's house are many mansions". The sharing motif runs strong. WL said that without man, God was incomplete, with unmet desire for a counterpart. We look at the "Adam and his counterpart" scenario to open the Bible in Genesis, and "the Wedding Feast of the Lamb has come" at the end, in Revelation. And so also in between: "He that has the bride is the Bridegroom" in the fourth gospel (3:29), etc. So we can say that the sharing part is valid. And likewise the wedding picture(s) is/are merited. But my problem is that this sharing seems to be much more than merely a lonely Triune God looking for a counterpart (assuming that's a valid picture). For example, here's another picture of sharing: the Father is out looking, because He's lost His son. He then sees the lost son returning and rejoices, and says, "My son was lost and is found, and was dead and is now alive." (Luke 15:24,32) So the Father had a dead son who was returned back alive to Him. Jesus taught, "Unless the grain of wheat dies, it abides alone, but if it dies it bears much fruit." Jesus was the living grain, abiding alone with the Father. The rest of the grains were dead. Jesus was the living Son, and all the other sons were dead. Therefore, the living Son died so that the dead sons might live. The one grain fell and died, and many living grains came forth. And notice that in the "prodigal" narrative there's a party when the dead son returns, just as there's a wedding feast with a Bride and Groom. But are there two festivities, one being nuptial and the other one not? Or are these both limited pictures, each opening small windows into heaven? I lean toward the second view. Each picture at best points to an aspect of something bigger, and is balanced and restrained by other aspects. In the Luke 15 story, the separation of God and man is cast in differently. The betrothal of God and man as a picture to stimulate our understanding is only one of many pictures, and is merely a type among many. Jesus is also the bread of life. We eat Him. Do we eat our Husband? Jesus is the door. Do we marry a door? Jesus is the Lamb of God. Do we marry a farm animal? And so forth. The "wedding theme" only brings us so far. WL carried it too far, oversimplified the narrative, and ignored the bulk of scripture in order to sell "today's fresh bread" to the LC masses. It was today's version of Rudyard Kipling's "Just So Stories", re-packaged and sold to the simple. (and yes I was one of them). WL had to give message after message, sometimes two or three per day, pretty much every day, all year long. So every theme useful for message material was expanded, often beyond its scope. "Jack and Jill went up the hill to fetch a pail of water" might become a conference, a book, and sixteen cassette tapes. And we all do it; we all arguably oversell our own contributions toward the larger conversation. See my comments below. Quote:
I previously mentioned angels and the the so-called host of heaven as an example. I could easily fixate upon angels, just as WL did with his metaphors and pictures, and lose perspective of the NT narrative. But I still wanted to show that there are other aspects of the narrative which have fallen away over time. Clearly in the Protestant and post-Protestant worlds, the "hosts" have fallen largely out of our consciousnesses, and the conversation, and our thought-pictures. In my church they came out every Christmas eve, and sang to the baby Jesus, and then went back into the holiday closet. But they're there; if you look for them, they're ubiquitous in the text, both OT and NT. And the fall of the angels out of our view probably was connected to the emerging Protestant, post-Medieval thought-world, which tried to restore Jesus to His rightful place in primacy of the Christian narrative. Not the pope, God's earthly vicar, not the festivals and rituals of the church, nor the saints and angels, but Jesus Christ was our center and goal. Faith in Jesus was now the way home, not some mumbo-jumbo sacrament, not the traditions of men, and not old wives' tales. But we probably overcompensated in the Calvinist schema. And even though our new thought-worlds were arguably better than the old, they were themselves still somewhat lacking. I do the same thing, in that I overcompensate in my arguments and fixate upon my alternative to WL's "Just So Story" as if my proposal were now the only thing real and true. But it's not. It's only part of the tale, at best. I still remain partly lost and ignorant, among the partly lost and ignorant. And so I find the picture of WL's "incomplete God" pining for His counterpart to be such an oversimplification that it strains at absurdity. But the very fact that I am reacting, here, may indicate more about me and my own "unmet needs" and "lostness" than about WL merchandizing the spiritual equivalent of nursery rhymes. Because I live in the post-Protestant world, where everything is fair game, especially including my own reactions! And lastly, I point out that there are good and diligent scholars out there, who are quite aware of what has been lost. They pore over what is known and respectfully stop at the limits of the known and say, "We do not know." But the journey to the limits of the known is arguably much more profitable than pseudo-scholars and teachers who presume that their simplistic thought-pictures encapsulate everything about the story. How can you say that you've laid hold (i.e. "we here see the high peak, consummated picture of God's heart's desire") if you can't even see what you don't have? You've forgotten what was lost, and are picturing figments, trying to replace that which is real. As things in and of themselves they cannot work, and never will work. And the danger is that these stories, if held to be valid in their own right, can obfuscate and distract our view of scripture, instead of clarifying it. And it becomes yet another vanity, another product, bought and sold in the marketplace of vanities.
__________________
"Freedom is free. It's slavery that's so horribly expensive" - Colonel Templeton, ret., of the 12th Scottish Highlanders, the 'Black Fusiliers' |
||
|
|
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
