Quote:
Originally Posted by OBW
INTP
Not that different.
And I think that we are talking about different things here. My main complaints relate to
1. Lee's kind of Trinity/Triune — that majors on the oneness to the near removal of the Threeness, and
2. The distinct separation of the "human spirit" from the soul.
On the second, when we were responding to questions about Nee's three-part man verses some years ago, I think we discovered that several of the verses that he claimed to prove the human spirit as having characteristics that are not soul or body, we found that actually most of them (maybe all) really were the same as aspects of the soul. More like an enhanced feature of the soul than some separate thing (organ?). It makes the claim that only the living and operative word can separate soul from spirit more meaningful. According to Nee, the letter of the word can do it through mere logic. Nothing "living" required.
|
Yeah, the deep thinkers....
I think Lee was correct to point out the oneness of the Trinity. He was just wrong not to push the threeness enough. This was because, I think, he did not have insight into why God was three. Well, he did have some. He said God is Triune for dispensing, which is true in a way, if by dispensing you mean having an intimate relationship. God's triune-ness came, I think, from his relationship with himself. To say God wants to dispense is to say, or should be to say, he wants to be in relationship. This started with his relationship with his Son, which is another way of saying it started with his relationship with himself.
So when Lee said the Son is the Father, he was correct, because both are God and there is only one God. But it is just as valid to say the Son is not the Father, because in some way they are distinct. That sounds absurd until you realize that each statement is talking about different things. But the distinctness is more than just titles or hats or modes. It's the fundamental, natural result of what must happen inside any self-conscious, intelligent being. Such a being cannot help but have this duality within himself, this relationship with himself, which results in this threeness. (1) the source, (2) the image, and (3) the interaction between the first two. Not two, not four or five, but three. It's built in and must happen.
Lee did not see this, so though he saw the oneness of the Trinity, he did not see the threeness as something that existed in God for a reason other than his purpose to dispense into us. He didn't see that God dispensed into himself first.
Because God wanted to share his experience, he created us and invited us to join in his fellowship with himself... which is the fellowship of the Father and the Son... which is the Spirit. Because he completely knows himself, and delights in knowing himself, he wants us to know him completely, too. Not only so, he wants us to know each other, and he even wants us to know ourselves.
In other words, the principle of knowing another is the essence of God, even if the "other" is yourself. That's why God is love.
As to the spirit being more unified with the soul than Lee taught, I don't have a problem with that. As you said, the only thing that can really tell them apart is light from God from his word. Trying to discern by ourselves results in confusion. You can only really reliably know your spirit by keeping your eyes on Jesus and his word.
Our spirit is our connection with God, but it is also our connection with ourselves. 1 Cor 2:11