[aron]

Originally Posted by awareness

Thread progress so far:

The last man Adam became a life giving "x" ...

And the Trinity = x.

I am quoting from another thread but wanted to post here. We are presenting, ostensibly, truth from the Word; the scholar in question, like WL or the Bible Answer Man, is supposed to be teaching something of enduring and encompassing value. If the scholars are engaged in disputes over meanings of words then I don't see much profit except to lawyers and certain publishing houses who cater to those with "itching ears" to hear of scandal and conflict. And the same applies to posting here on this forum, and elsewhere.

If a person comes into your meeting, looking for inspiration and truth, and to escape from the bondage of Satan, and we want to boil the idea of God down to "x" for them, then we should keep it simple. What truth encompasses the whole of scriptures? Maybe something like "love one another". Or "believe into Jesus Christ and be saved." This kind of command arguably pervades the whole story. I don't give that as the definitive answer here, but rather as what our message, and our answer, might reasonably look like.

But if our supposedly distilled truth is that God became flesh who became Spirit who became intensified to indwell the believer making them God in life and nature but not in the Godhead, you arguably end up cutting off a lot of scripture that you can't make conform to your theology. So instead of scripture you have your few foundational verses, and the rest is chanting/singing/praying/declaring doctrinal bullet points derived from those few verses.

Remember that song with the chorus, "Jesus is the living spirit/we must now proclaim"? That was WL's doctrine which it was expected all believers "must now proclaim" endlessly, with our testimonies, declarations, trainings, and so forth . That became our truth. We were told, Don't inquire in the pages of scripture, because WL already answered everything. We were told not to go beyond the footnotes. If there is no footnote there, or it points only to one thing, then that, for us, becomes the extent of expressed reality. We were 'encouraged' and 'fellowshipped' not to go beyond the "recovered truth". The theology in question therefore became a conceptual cage.

The seeking one in this environment is essentially forbidden from seeking. WL supposedly answered everything.

Originally Posted by FaithInChrist

I'm sorry to seem nitpicky, but the actual reference is 2 Corinthians 13:14, which is the verse I will be working with in this post about the Trinity.

i) In the first paragraph of the footnote, Philip Schaff is quoted, introducing the term “hypostases.”

ii) The first sentence of the second paragraph can be illustrated (albeit not perfectly) with a stream. God the Father is “the source,” the fount or origin of the stream. God the Son is “the course,” the route the stream takes, connecting the fount with the location of the drinker. God the Spirit is “the transmission,” the action of the water from the stream entering and becoming a part of the drinker when he/she drinks. Though “the source,” “the course,” and “the transmission” are three distinct “functions” of the stream, there are not three separate streams. There is only one stream with three “supporting substances.”

Hopefully the stream illustration answers the questions from post #38 by Igzy. Question 1: When you drink water from the stream, you just have one thing (water) in your system; however, that water includes “the source,” “the course,” and “the transmission.” Question 2: There isn’t really a need to “experience the distinction between” “the course” and “the transmission.” Water is water. Just enjoy slaking your thirst with it. Question 3: Just because you don’t need to “experience the distinction” doesn’t mean “the course” and “the transmission” are the same thing.

When the angel was carrying John, who was "in spirit" (Rev 17:3, 21:10), was the angel also carrying Jesus and the Father God? If so, isn't the angel part of the "course" or "transmission"? If so, why isn't the angel worshipped? Clearly when John tried to do so the angel forbade him, repeatedly (Rev 19:10, 22:9).

When Gabriel spoke to Zechariah and Mary in Luke 1, he was transmitting the command from the throne, but clearly Gabriel was not the "course of" the trinity. Etc etc; we have hundreds or thousands of instances where your formula runs aground. So to follow WL we simply hold the formula, and let go of the Bible. That is where your theology will get you.

FaithInChrist says that WL's illustrations are not perfect. I agree. Nor are mine. But my questions and tentative hypotheses, don't push a "truth" beyond that we should repent and believe, and love one another, and receive one another in the name of Christ, etc. I still have a lot of questions and my questions come from stories like Gabriel speaking to Mary, and an angel carrying the apostle John in spirit. In the Local Churches of Lee, I am told to ignore such questions because WL's theology doesn't address them. If I continue to ask, I risk being labeled "dark", "confused", or "divisive". Better to be silent, or chant the bullet point of Local Church (i.e. Living Stream Ministry) Dogma.

Originally Posted by FaithInChrist

"My answer is that He is the Triune God and that the Trinity is a mystery. If you can understand the Trinity and define it adequately, it is no longer a mystery. In the realm of mathematics or chemistry, things can be scientifically analyzed by the human mind. That is science, not mystery. If you can use your supposedly clever mind to understand the Triune God, He is no longer a mystery. Because none of us can understand the Trinity adequately, it remains a mystery. Do not ask me why. I do not know why. I can only say, ‘The Bible tells us so.’ Do not argue; just take the pure Word of God. […] This one unique God is Triune. I do not know how to explain this, although for many years I tried. During the past fifty years, I spent a great deal of time analyzing and trying to understand the Trinity. Since I could find no way to resolve it, I gave up long ago. I said to myself, ‘Little man, you are too small. You can never understand the Trinity adequately’”

"This matter of the Trinity has been a subject of great argument and strong disputation among Christians ever since the second century. During the last eighteen or nineteen centuries, the argument has never ceased. It has been utilized by the enemy to destroy the unity of the saints. Do not get caught in the snare of endless debate. We must come back from the traditional terms sayings, and teachings to the pure Word of God. The controversy concerning such a mystery as the Trinity is endless. Be on the alert to avoid this trap”. ~from The Truth Concerning the Trinity – Two Answers by Witness Lee (copyrighted 1976) Anaheim: Living Stream Ministry, 1994. Print.

This quote is titled "Two Answers by Witness Lee". Okay -- who was Witness Lee answering here? Was this a printed dispute over the trinity; a broadside aimed at the "Melodyland" folks? If so, who profited? The truth, so-called? Or seekers of divine reality? Or rather lawyers and publishers? WL says to come back to the "pure word", and avoid traps, but to my impression is that his theology needs to ignore much the pure word in order to maintain its coherence. You need a very small Bible.