Quote:
Originally Posted by UntoHim
Just as Witness Lee used the extra-biblical terms "essential" and "economical" to go beyond what is written in the actual text, our friends Drake and Evangelical use extra-biblical terms (hypostatic, etc) to go beyond what is written. Witness Lee was not a trained theologian, and it showed big time in his make-it-up-as-he-went-along "recovered" teachings.
I'm glad to see that Evangelical (Drake too?) are using other bible helps, such as Gill, when studying these theological matters. But, please, don't try to use the theological musings of legitimate scholars to bolster the teachings of Witness Lee. Even Lee himself would rarely reference the works of others (although he occasionally plagiarized them without giving credit), and he certainly gave little to no credit to anyone but himself for his "high peak truths".
-
|
You say that Drake and I use extra-biblical sources yet you used the Athanasian creed to support your version of the Trinity, written about 500 hundred years after Christ...
I believe that if we quote only the Bible without resorting to extra-biblical sources, then Lee's version of the Trinity is the one that would result. Afterall, Lee's methods of interpretation is to let the Bible explain the bible, in a simplistic and literal way - we accept that Jesus is the Spirit and Jesus is the Father because the Bible says so. Lee and us are possibly the only ones who are letting the Bible speak for itself.
You and others say this is wrong, not because the bible says so, but because the Athanasian Creed says so. Who is using extra-biblical sources now?
What you are constrained to do, is refer to extra-biblical sources such as the Athanasian Creed to defend your version of the Trinity. In this respect you are no different to the Catholics who point to the Church traditions and early church fathers to support their teachings and practices. The version of the Trinity that you hold onto is a version which depends upon extra-biblical sources, and the large religious institutions such as the Catholic church which enforce and uphold them.
If we reject the Creeds and let the bible speak for itself then Lee's version of the Trinity is the result. If you had no prior knowledge of the Creed's and had only your bible then I believe you would believe the same as Lee about the Trinity.
The word hypostatic is no more extra biblical than the term Trinity.
It means
a technical term in Christian theology employed in mainstream Christology to describe the union of Christ's humanity and divinity in one hypostasis, or individual existence.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypostatic_union
Although Lee does not often use that terminology, whenever Lee refers to Christ as the God-man, he is essentially referring to the hypostatic union.
I am not using theological resources to bolster the teachings of Lee. Rather I am showing that there are multiple ways to interpret God "forsaking" Christ on the cross, and most bible commentaries I have read agree with me (and Lee etc) that the Father departing Christ, was likely not one of them. At least two bible commentaries - Gill and Clarke show that the Father did not *leave* Christ on the cross. The leaving was in regards to God's manifest presence, but the Father still indwelt Christ the whole time.