Lee's Trinity

[OBW]

I note the quote from Lee on today's (2/1/2017) sidebar and it is one of the more controversial aspects of his teaching. It was the major factor that provoked the letter from 70 biblical scholars. It is the place where he equivocates and dances all over the spectrum more than any other.

Let's start with the quote:

Originally Posted by WLee

The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism. When the Spirit of God is joined with us, God is not left behind, nor does Christ remain on the throne. This is the impression Christianity gives. They think of the Father as one Person, sending the Son, another Person, to accomplish redemption, after which the Son sends the Spirit, yet another Person. The Spirit, in traditional thinking, comes into the believers, while the Father and Son are left on the throne. When believers pray, they are taught to bow before the Father and pray in the name of the Son. To split the Godhead into these separate Persons is not the revelation of the Bible.

I find this kind of speaking to be overly simplistic and naïve. To declare that in human terms there is simply only one person is to presume something not in the record (the scripture).

There was a discussion (here or the BARM) several years ago concerning the crucifixion and whether all of the Godhead was “present” in the death of Jesus. (Not just present at the death, but also died there.) I recall a fair bit of thought that based on the general presumption of one person that God the Father felt the pain but did not die. But I wonder if we are simply taking a different form of Human perspective to arrive at that conclusion.

Maybe the issue is not with there being only one person, but with the manner in which they are one. I note that Abugian and his crew at the BARM were pretty stuck on the “oneness is in essence” idea. I cannot say that it is right or wrong. But I do note that it is essentially what has been taught by the non-modalist side of Christianity as far back as there are writings outside of the Bible itself.

I do not dismiss the Bible from the discussion. But it is clear that defining the Trinity and the precise relationship of the Three as One God was never its goal. It was not made a lynchpin of Christian theology. Why? I don’t know. But it was not.

But when we start to look at the evidence that is in the Bible, it really doesn’t support Lee as much as we often think it does. It is in Lee’s statement (above, last sentence) declaring the traditional form of prayer — bow and pray to the Father in the name of the Son — to be “not the revelation of the Bible.” But I find that the very manner in which Jesus taught the disciples to pray to support this in a significant way. “Our Father in heaven . . . .” There is never a switch in direction of the prayer. It is to the Father. Not the Son or the Spirit. No, it does not end with “in Jesus name.” But while not exactly the same thing, Jesus did direct us to ask in his name. Not to ritualistically tack it on the prayer, but to be one with Him in our request and therefore an agent of his in prayer.

But that does not change that it is “in His name,” not to him or to the Spirit. It remains to the Father. I think the verse may even say something like "whatever you ask the Father in my name . . . ."

Prayer is to the Father. That is the record in the scripture.

And I am struck by Jesus’ prayer that we would be “one as we are one . . . .” I don’t care how you parse what follows. We are not one among ourselves in the way that a one-person God would be. That is a oneness beyond attainment at a time that it needs to be prayed about. If Jesus was only referring to oneness in the next age, then there is no need to pray about it. At that time things will be as they are intended to be. No need to earnestly pray to the Father about it.

I still don’t know what kind of oneness that is because other than “You in me and I in them” nothing is said to describe it. And if it is just about the fact that Jesus is in us, then still no need to pray about it. That is the way it is Jesus is in us (unless we are reprobates).


Thoughts?

[Evangelical]

Some people get touchy when you question or try to refine the Trinity doctrine. Roman Catholic and Orthodox people are like that, even many Protestants. They are still ruled by the fear that they will be outcast as heretics (or even put to death as some were) if they are perceived to deny a central tenet of the faith.

When Lee says "The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism", he is not arguing for discarding the Trinity doctrine and embracing modalism. He is shifting the balance away from a model which borders on tritheism. As this website says there are different models of the Trinity -
http://reknew.org/2007/12/what-are-t...f-the-trinity/

Like Witness Lee, Augustine believed a version of the Trinity that some would say borders on modalism, that the 3 Persons are different aspects of the one Person. Yet Augustine is still a widely respected early church Father in Protestantism. Based on this, to say Augustine was a modalist is silly, he clearly affirms the 3 person Godhead, as Lee does also.

We should also note that the Trinity doctrine took years to evolve. If we look into early church writings we will discover that the formulaic version of the Trinity "in the Father, Son and Spirit", was not common place. Sometimes only one of the 3 was used, or two of the three. Sometimes they would just say "God", which can refer to either one of the 3 persons, or to the whole Godhead. If we lived in the time of the apostles and asked them about the Trinity they would not know what we are talking about - they had not yet formulated or specified an exact doctrine about it. However many years later the Trinity doctrine was formulated from all of the evidence available - the apostles and early Christians held the ideas and beliefs that form the basis of the Trinity doctrine that we know today.

We should realize what the Trinity doctrine is. The Trinity doctrine is a model invented by humans. A model is something that humans use to more easily explain and analyze complex things, such as God. As a model, it can never be 100% accurate or detailed in every respect. The limitation on the model's accuracy is what we do not know or cannot explain or understand. In the early days of the church, people's faith in God was judged by whether or not they accepted the model, some were even killed for it. The reason for that was not just because they wanted to be right about the nature of God, but because the alternative models (modalism etc), denied the Lord Jesus's divinity and rightful place as the son of God, even God Himself in human form. As it is just a model I do not see why it is a problem to refine it or question it as long as we maintain the reasons why it was developed in the first place - to defend Christ's nature. Jews, Muslims, JW's, and others who deny the Trinity, do so because they do not accept the divinity of the Son. However there is still room for improvement in the Trinity model. What many Christians may not know is that the exact relationship between the 3 Persons of the Trinity was never accurately defined. I suppose this was because the main purpose of defining the Trinity in the first place was to counter heresies at the time to do with the nature of Christ and whether or not he was God or just a man, or was he fully God or just half a God.

One aspect of the relationship between the 3 Persons, is about whether they are all present with 1, or whether they can separate themselves in space and time.
For one reason or another it is a common belief in Christianity that the Father stayed in heaven and he sent Christ to Earth. This view says that it is possible for them to be separated.

Not only is this denying the omnipresence of God, but Christ's own words: "John 8:29 The one who sent me is with me; he has not left me alone, for I always do what pleases him.". I believe Lee is right when he says the Father sent the Son but also was present with the Son. Christ also said "My God, my God, why have you forsaken me?" indicating that the Father's presence departed from him.

Although Jesus taught the Lord's prayer to pray to the Father, this is not to the exclusion of praying to the Son. There are examples in the Bible of the disciples praying to Christ. The name of Christ was upheld and used often. The "it is wrong to pray to Jesus" movement is clearly wrong. To not pray to Jesus says that he is not really God. For example the Jehovah’s Witnesses will not pray to Jesus because they think that He is not worthy of worship.

The Bible never goes into great detail about whether or not all 3 were present on the cross, or whether only 2 are is heaven and 1 is on earth, etc. From the Bible it is possible to construct a doctrine that the Father was in Heaven, the Son was on Earth and the Spirit came to Earth only after Pentecost. It is also possible to construct a doctrine which says that all three were present on the Earth at the same time - God is omniscient.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should realize what the Trinity doctrine is. The Trinity doctrine is a model invented by humans. A model is something that humans use to more easily explain and analyze complex things, such as God. As a model, it can never be 100% accurate or detailed in every respect. The limitation on the model's accuracy is what we do not know or cannot explain or understand.

You are correct, though I wouldn't use the word ‘invent’. The support for the doctrine comes directly from the Bible.

I was thinking about this whole topic and a certain peculiarity of the LC struck me. It is not uncommon for LC members to refer to God as the Triune God or the processed and consummated Triune God. I even remember hearing proclamations like praise the Triune God! So in the LC, this doctrine of the Trinity is more of a construct than anything else. There is a song they sing, it goes something like this: “Now the Triune God has come to dwell within, as the wonderful Spirit in us…” We both agree that the “Triune God” (Trinity) is a doctrine. According to this song, a doctrine comes to dwell within, no?

I’m not really trying to be sarcastic, but I do think it’s worth pointing out some of these absurdities. Lee’s teaching on the Trinity serves as ‘container’ which he tried to squeeze God into. Notably, he taught that each of the Trinity is synonymous with the other. Instead of following the distinctions found in the Bible (like Jesus praying to the Father), Lee chose to blur everything into his own construct of God. It makes sense then why LC members prefer to use terminology like Triune God instead of being more specific as to what they're talking about.

[TLFisher]

My thoughts on the trinity, don't try to explain it nor comprehend. It's mysterious. At best it's a descriptive word. Should it be used as a proper noun?

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Terry

My thoughts on the trinity, don't try to explain it nor comprehend. It's mysterious. At best it's a descriptive word. Should it be used as a proper noun?

Or should we consider "he" or "him" to be a proper pronoun?

My goal is not to arrive at a better explanation, but to understand the variability that bounds the discussion. And the "nearly tritheist" position would appear to not be so nearly heretical as some have suggested.

It is clear that there is no viable formula for practice that creates oneness. Nee and Lee offered "church boundary = city" and their own group is busy excommunicating its own members, including entire assemblies, over things as petty as how much LSM materials will be used in its meetings and agreement (or disagreement) with the excommunication of TC.

So no matter how hard they claim that their fantasy is the key to oneness, it is clear that they cannot be one within their own group because of it.

And it might be that part of what causes this oneness that Jesus prayed about would be reducing the amount of doctrinal certainty that we hold to. The very opposite of many — especially those who try to claim to be "the one" or otherwise consider themselves to be spiritually superior to all others.

And like my own journey of "recovery" with respect to LRC doctrine, small opportunities to rethink old positions is better than just lambasting the whole thing. Each conclusion that there is some single error chinks the armor. Eventually, you realize that there are better sources of good Christian thought.

[Evangelical]

Originally Posted by Freedom

You are correct, though I wouldn't use the word ‘invent’. The support for the doctrine comes directly from the Bible.

I was thinking about this whole topic and a certain peculiarity of the LC struck me. It is not uncommon for LC members to refer to God as the Triune God or the processed and consummated Triune God. I even remember hearing proclamations like praise the Triune God! So in the LC, this doctrine of the Trinity is more of a construct than anything else. There is a song they sing, it goes something like this: “Now the Triune God has come to dwell within, as the wonderful Spirit in us…” We both agree that the “Triune God” (Trinity) is a doctrine. According to this song, a doctrine comes to dwell within, no?

I’m not really trying to be sarcastic, but I do think it’s worth pointing out some of these absurdities. Lee’s teaching on the Trinity serves as ‘container’ which he tried to squeeze God into. Notably, he taught that each of the Trinity is synonymous with the other. Instead of following the distinctions found in the Bible (like Jesus praying to the Father), Lee chose to blur everything into his own construct of God. It makes sense then why LC members prefer to use terminology like Triune God instead of being more specific as to what they're talking about.

I should have said develop I suppose, couldn't think of the right word at the time. You make a good point. Also consider that many in denominations will just say "God", referring to either the Father, Son or Spirit, or all three. I find it better to use "Triune God" to emphasize the whole 3-persons of the Trinity. Also, the use of the word Triune God often, should prove that Lee is a Trinitarian.

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Like Witness Lee, Augustine believed a version of the Trinity that some would say borders on modalism, that the 3 Persons are different aspects of the one Person.

Don't presume that making any kind of equation between Lee and anyone else makes any position reasonable.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

We should realize what the Trinity doctrine is. The Trinity doctrine is a model invented by humans. A model is something that humans use to more easily explain and analyze complex things, such as God. As a model, it can never be 100% accurate or detailed in every respect.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

. . . Not only is this denying the omnipresence of God, but Christ's own words . . .

Nothing in what I said denied the omnipresence of God. There is nothing in declaring the Godhead to be 3 persons in some kind of unity that is beyond our concept, or 1 person with more than parlor tricks (modalism) to be understood in three that is contrary to scripture except to the extent that it clearly contradicts something clearly stated.

Originally Posted by Evangelical

Although Jesus taught the Lord's prayer to pray to the Father, this is not to the exclusion of praying to the Son.

I find that examples where there is some kind of prayer to Christ to be non-compelling when it comes to the fact that this was the only method taught by Christ, or observed of him by others. I am not saying that those others are wrong. Rather that, if anything, they are allowed despite the obvious statements that it should be according to a general format that was not like those prayers.

So if the goal is to use the scripture to insist on something, then it would seem that the insistence is on the way Jesus taught, not on the way some may have done it.

But when it comes to the teachings of Lee, he took great joy in describing the "low" prayers of poor Christians who just pray to the Father and pray about their needs, including the need for forgiveness. Lee insisted on praying only for the "high" things like the kingdom and the church.

Funny that this is not how Jesus taught us to pray.


But as it often the case, the goal of this thread was not to discuss modes of prayer, or whether Lee was a modalist. Rather to analyze the notion of the oneness of the Godhead in terms of some words found in the Bible. Words such as "be one as we are one." This is a statement that is not commenting on whether God is omnipresent. Rather it suggests something about the oneness of God that is not consistent with a "one God = one person" theology. It actually supports a theology that approaches three separates that are unified in a manner that we can likewise be unified. "Essence" doesn't even quite get it. It would seem to transcend. There should be something among the Christians that overcomes race, nationality, gender, political affiliation, and so much more. It is not something simply conferred upon us because we are Christian. It is something that needs action. Probably a change of heart and mind.

Yet it is, at least at some level, how Jesus declares he and the Father to be one. I will admit that their oneness does not require prayer to possibly happen. It simply is. Yet it is stated as being possible for us in this life.

Something that ignores whether you voted for Trump, Hillary, or some write-in. That is above your personal understanding of the best way to do communion or to baptize. Or whether you can lose your salvation or cannot. (Seems that if you are moving forward in Christ the issue is irrelevant.)

Yes, the decision of where to meet would be much easier if we were all that kind of one. We would not despise those who do not think like us.

The issue ceases to be whether our version of a particular doctrine is right but whether we are Christian. And no declaration of name or no name will make that right or wrong. It is beyond the identification of the assembly. it is in the heart of each Christian that must be one with all others. Those who separate will do so for themselves. Those who do not will be one no matter how or where they generally meet.

But then, once more, does that one statement by Jesus suggest something about the "One" of God that is more like three that are unified than one that is understood and experienced as three. I believe that it supports the former, not the latter.

Something more like the nearly tritheist position of the standard Trinity doctrine.

[Freedom]

Originally Posted by OBW

But as it often the case, the goal of this thread was not to discuss modes of prayer, or whether Lee was a modalist. Rather to analyze the notion of the oneness of the Godhead in terms of some words found in the Bible. Words such as "be one as we are one." This is a statement that is not commenting on whether God is omnipresent. Rather it suggests something about the oneness of God that is not consistent with a "one God = one person" theology. It actually supports a theology that approaches three separates that are unified in a manner that we can likewise be unified. "Essence" doesn't even quite get it. It would seem to transcend. There should be something among the Christians that overcomes race, nationality, gender, political affiliation, and so much more. It is not something simply conferred upon us because we are Christian. It is something that needs action. Probably a change of heart and mind.

The concept of oneness found in the Bible is one of the things that WL was very unclear about. His concept of oneness was uniformity, and I think he went so far as to project such a view on God, by saying that each of the Trinity is synonymous with the other.

In the NT, Jesus speaks about being one with the Father, and he also speaks about doing the Father’s will. The former could have an implication of the Father and Son being the same, but that whole possibility is easily tossed out the window, because Jesus talks about doing the Father’s will.

Jesus chose to act and exist as someone who was subordinate to the Father. I wouldn’t speculate if he could disobey the Father (that would have likely created a paradox), but the important thing here is that the view of Jesus being subordinate to the Father necessitates a fundamental distinction between the Father and the Son. WL’s view simply doesn't make sense. The ‘oneness’ couldn’t possibly be any kind of uniform or conglomerate view of God. Rather, it is a oneness in purpose. Of course our understanding of God involves an understanding of the Trinity and some sort of essential ‘oneness’, but that doesn't mean that God operates or acts as a singular entity in everything he does. The Bible doesn't present us with that view.

I don't claim to understand 'oneness' but one thing I do know is that the LC has got it all wrong.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Freedom

I don't claim to understand 'oneness' but one thing I do know is that the LC has got it all wrong.

Many Christians think the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't matter. But what's interesting is that many aberrant groups tend to have aberrant views of the Trinity. That doesn't prove anything but it might suggest that our view of the dynamic between the one and the many in the Trinity informs our view of the same dynamic among people.

Lee stressed the essential oneness of the Trinity, so it's probably no coincidence that is what he stressed in the Church. Lee had no interest in diversity. He wasn't always that extreme. But as he got older he more and more insisted on uniformity. In his view if we were all like Christ we should more or less be identical. And he believed local churches should be identical. But that stands in stark contrast to God's expression in creation. Look at the many different ways God manifests himself in thousand and thousands of different types of creatures and plants. But Lee thought when it came to people we should all strive to be the same, even down to the same white shirts, dark pants and black shoes.

Again this is evidence of his abusive, over-controlling approach.

To me the Trinity shows two main things: One, life is about relationships. Two, unity does not trump diversity, nor vice versa. Both should co-exist equally.

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Many Christians think the doctrine of the Trinity doesn't matter. But what's interesting is that many aberrant groups tend to have aberrant views of the Trinity.

That's right.

The New Testament provides us with very little emphasis on Trinitarian theology. When things do get addressed it is in the form of rebuttals. In other words, when aberrant groups began to spread their heretical teachings in the church, whether they be gnostics, Catholics, JDubs, or Mormons, at that point the apostles and teachers must step in to rightly divide the word of God in order to shepherd the church of God.

Apart from that, the N.T. exhorts us to pay our attention, not to theology and endless doctrinal discussions, but to the works of faith and labors of love.

[Trapped]

Originally Posted by Igzy

To me the Trinity shows two main things: One, life is about relationships. Two, unity does not trump diversity, nor vice versa. Both should co-exist equally.

And this is how the church should be. If God is unity and diversity, so should the church be. Lee wanted a church that was unified and uniform, but with no diversity. That is not God.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by OBW

I do not dismiss the Bible from the discussion. But it is clear that defining the Trinity and the precise relationship of the Three as One God was never its goal. It was not made a lynchpin of Christian theology. Why? I don’t know. But it was not.

I still don’t know what kind of oneness that is because other than “You in me and I in them” nothing is said to describe it. And if it is just about the fact that Jesus is in us, then still no need to pray about it. That is the way it is Jesus is in us (unless we are reprobates).

Thoughts?

(Modalism has been brought up a few times recently in various threads on this forum recently, and I thought to start a discussion about it. But then I found this thread and thought to just comment here . . .)

This was a good opening post by OBW back in 2017, and this thread had stretched into the spring of this year. So here's my buck-two-ninety-eight on the subject.

Trying to definitively describe the triune God, as my dad likes to say, "Is like trying to corner Jello!" People go forth and back and forth with each other, trying to nail this down. It's perhaps worse than an amoeba trying to describe a flying eagle to another amoeba (picture that!). But yet brothers rail against others and call them heretics (and maybe worse), because they perceive that the other is off somewhere in describing their perception of this mystery (i.e., Modalism vs Trinitarianism).

Dare I say it - SO WHAT!?

I read a book by Bill Freeman from 1994 titled, "The Triune God in Experience (The Testimony of Church History)." It is the best thing I've read on the subject (BTW - out of print) as its main thesis is that, "The utterance selected by the Holy Spirit to convey the fact of God's triune existence as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is consistent within the text of experience. . . . the way He has chosen to make His triune being known is in the context of man's experience." (from pg. 1-2) Therefore all the back and forth humans have in trying to pin down exactly how this One exists, is akin to the proverbial "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" argument. In other words, it doesn't really make any difference in the end, and misses the point, namely - GOD WANTS TO BE EXPERIENCED BY US AND HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH US! (and not to be mentally dissected by us)

I believe if someone is in perceived error regarding the exact nature of God, it is His job to point that out, not mine. And who am I really to say that I (amoeba) have an accurate view of God's (eagle) nature any way? The important thing conveyed in the New Covenant is that we are to go boldly to Him, and He will then let us know what we need to know. (this is, of course, unless the person thinks God is like the Purple Flying Spaghetti Monster or some such nonsense)

There, I feel better now . . . (and it's all about me )

[Bubbles!]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

(Modalism has been brought up a few times recently in various threads on this forum recently, and I thought to start a discussion about it. But then I found this thread and thought to just comment here . . .)

This was a good opening post by OBW back in 2017, and this thread had stretched into the spring of this year. So here's my buck-two-ninety-eight on the subject.

Trying to definitively describe the triune God, as my dad likes to say, "Is like trying to corner Jello!" People go forth and back and forth with each other, trying to nail this down. It's perhaps worse than an amoeba trying to describe a flying eagle to another amoeba (picture that!). But yet brothers rail against others and call them heretics (and maybe worse), because they perceive that the other is off somewhere in describing their perception of this mystery (i.e., Modalism vs Trinitarianism).

Dare I say it - SO WHAT!?

I read a book by Bill Freeman from 1994 titled, "The Triune God in Experience (The Testimony of Church History)." It is the best thing I've read on the subject (BTW - out of print) as its main thesis is that, "The utterance selected by the Holy Spirit to convey the fact of God's triune existence as Father, Son and Holy Spirit is consistent within the text of experience. . . . the way He has chosen to make His triune being known is in the context of man's experience." (from pg. 1-2) Therefore all the back and forth humans have in trying to pin down exactly how this One exists, is akin to the proverbial "How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?" argument. In other words, it doesn't really make any difference in the end, and misses the point, namely - GOD WANTS TO BE EXPERIENCED BY US AND HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH US! (and not to be mentally dissected by us)

I believe if someone is in perceived error regarding the exact nature of God, it is His job to point that out, not mine. And who am I really to say that I (amoeba) have an accurate view of God's (eagle) nature any way? The important thing conveyed in the New Covenant is that we are to go boldly to Him, and He will then let us know what we need to know. (this is, of course, unless the person thinks God is like the Purple Flying Spaghetti Monster or some such nonsense)

There, I feel better now . . . (and it's all about me )

There are a few bugs in this site, so, I hope that you received my private email I sent earlier.
But, it's quite a coincidence that you write this today! ( The Holy Ghost says that it's ''mystical!'' )
It amazes me that some claim to have such an esoteric knowledge of the Trinity. ( this amazement came from the Son! ) Even some of the things I read on here make my head spin! I also know that the angels on that pin spin too! Sometimes they do a ''twin spin'' just like the ol' 60s disc jockeys did! ( the Father hath revealed it! ) Exactly 4501 angels can fit on that pin! ( but I heard that the extra one got kicked off! )
I think I could profit by studying in ''cemetery.'' ( not a bad coining by Bro. Lee! )
Hey, I had spaghetti for lunch today! Any connection to the Purple Flying Spaghetti Monster? ( play Twilight Zone theme )

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Bubbles!

Any connection to the Purple Flying Spaghetti Monster? ( play Twilight Zone theme )

Hey, hey, now. There's been sightings of the flying spaghetti monster. Not a one of the trinity.

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

But yet brothers rail against others and call them heretics (and maybe worse), because they perceive that the other is off somewhere in describing their perception of this mystery (i.e., Modalism vs Trinitarianism).
Dare I say it - SO WHAT!?

SO What..What? So I guess you don't believe that there is such a thing as heresy? There is no correct teaching....only one person's "perception of this mystery" as opposed to another persons perception of this mystery? So really it boils down to your guess is as good as mine?

In other words, it doesn't really make any difference in the end, and misses the point, namely - GOD WANTS TO BE EXPERIENCED BY US AND HAVE A RELATIONSHIP WITH US! (and not to be mentally dissected by us)

So when I'm reading my Bible, how do I know if I'm experiencing God or just mentally dissecting him? Serious question. How do I know?
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

SO What..What? So I guess you don't believe that there is such a thing as heresy? There is no correct teaching....only one person's "perception of this mystery" as opposed to another persons perception of this mystery? So really it boils down to your guess is as good as mine?

So when I'm reading my Bible, how do I know if I'm experiencing God or just mentally dissecting him? Serious question. How do I know?

The point is, it's pretty much pointless - at least for me. What would I rather have - perfect knowledge about God's nature and not have a living relationship with Him; or have imperfect knowledge of God's nature, yet have a living relationship with Him? It's the old "Would you rather know the book or the Author?" question. (of course, having both - knowing the Author and accurately knowing His book - is best) If I know the Author, He will show me what I need to know about Him. But if I just know the book, without understanding - that's as far as my knowledge goes.

Just to put things in proper perspective . . . I've just seen myself spend hours, days, weeks, years going around and around this subject. If I added up all I gained in knowledge from studying the Trinity and put it on one side of the scale, then put one little flash of light from Him concerning His nature - guess which side would weigh more by far? (although some might say I was brought to the point of that flash of light by all the study)

And regarding your question, I would say the sense of life bro - a living relationship. Things are fresh and not dead. There is energy to pursue Him, get into His word and to get with others pursuing Him. "I've set before you this day life and death. Therefore choose life."

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

The point is, it's pretty much pointless - at least for me. What would I rather have - perfect knowledge about God's nature and not have a living relationship with Him; or have imperfect knowledge of God's nature, yet have a living relationship with Him?

I agree with you both!

No one has a "perfect knowledge" about God. I think a wide diversity of "God knowledge" is expected. For years I felt that Lee's "modalistic" tendencies were not worth fighting over -- Lee obviously did it to prove the rest of Christianity was off, and only he was the standard bearer for the truth. He poked the bear in the eye, and the bear reacted. Lee loved it! His adherents rallied around him.

That's not to say that "diversity is our strength" and we are all free to compose our own theology. Most of us draw a line with the deity of Christ (think JW's), His death, and His resurrection. Heresies often start right here with these.

For all the talk about high peaks theology at LSM, it's readily apparent that their relationship with God is sorely lacking. How can they do what they do, often with Lee's teachings and actions as their only justification, if their relationship with God was healthy?

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

And regarding your question, I would say the sense of life bro - a living relationship. Things are fresh and not dead. There is energy to pursue Him, get into His word and to get with others pursuing Him. "I've set before you this day life and death. Therefore choose life."

This all sounds so good, and normally should be, but in the hands of Lee and the Blendeds, even this is dangerous stuff. Lee taught his followers to "follow the sense of life" as he was filing lawsuits, quarantining insiders, shaming leaders, abusing his authority, covering sin, and judging everyone.

Any "sense of life" within us must be tested and governed by righteousness and scripture. The fact is our conscience can be trained wrongly.

[awareness]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This all sounds so good, and normally should be, but in the hands of Lee and the Blendeds, even this is dangerous stuff.

The suicide of Greg Cansteel is just one example of how dangerous Lee and the local church is. It seriously screws with saints heads. This is no light matter.

I know there are those out here that don't like to call it a cult. But it is. And it's as dangerous as any other cult. And the training's are nothing but an initiation into the cult, and into the group-think of the personality cult of Witness Lee.

[Sons to Glory!]

Originally Posted by Ohio

This all sounds so good, and normally should be, but in the hands of Lee and the Blendeds, even this is dangerous stuff. Lee taught his followers to "follow the sense of life" as he was filing lawsuits, quarantining insiders, shaming leaders, abusing his authority, covering sin, and judging everyone.

Any "sense of life" within us must be tested and governed by righteousness and scripture. The fact is our conscience can be trained wrongly.

Agree. That is why the Father has equipped us with both: The indwelling Christ within & His word with out - plus the body. But as you say, the conscience can be trained wrongly. What a mercy that He caused us to escape this error!

"God has sent for the Spirit of His Son into our hearts crying Daddy, Father!"

[UntoHim]

Originally Posted by Sons to Glory!

What would I rather have - perfect knowledge about God's nature and not have a living relationship with Him; or have imperfect knowledge of God's nature, yet have a living relationship with Him?

You have created a false dilemma. Who has ever said we need to have "perfect knowledge about God's nature?" In the past 50 years, I cannot recall anyone ever saying anything like this. I guess one could easily think that Witness Lee thought such things...Lord knows he taught such things. This kind of thinking is what led Lee to say: "The traditional explanation of the Trinity is grossly inadequate and borders on tritheism". Of course he never considered the opposite side of the coin: His "processed triune God" teaching is grossly overstated and borders on modalism.

And this is eternal life, that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.
John 17:3

I would posit that it is virtually impossible to "experience" someone that you don't know. The Lord Jesus did not say "that they may have perfect knowledge of you", he said "that they know you". I think that he means intimate knowledge. Knowledge that issues in love and grace. Love and demonstrable grace towards our neighbor - our fellow man. Does the knowledge come before love, or love before knowledge? The answer to this one is way above my paygrade, but at the end of the day, I will simply believe and say amen to the Lord Jesus' prayer to the Father: "that they know you, the only true God, and Jesus Christ whom you have sent.

It's the old "Would you rather know the book or the Author?" question. (of course, having both - knowing the Author and accurately knowing His book - is best) If I know the Author, He will show me what I need to know about Him. But if I just know the book, without understanding - that's as far as my knowledge goes.

Ah, "accurately knowing his book". I think you mean biblical theology, right? I mean, all of us have a theology. For some of us, our theology has gotten bent, twisted and turned every which way by some misguided, yet well-meaning "Bible teachers". The most dangerous ones, in my observation and experience, are teachers who say things like "people have been getting this all wrong for these 2,000 years....God has shown me the way it was from the beginning...What I teach is recovered truth!". (sound familiar?)

Theology does matter. Correct and accurate teaching does matter. I question anyone who says they know the Author but cannot accurately articulate the most basic tenets of the Christian faith, and basic historical, orthodox Christian theology. And yes, I also question someone who has all the things I've just listed, yet displays no grace towards their fellow man - believers and non believers. Anyone who knows the Author, and has a relationship with the Author, will treat others, love others and serve others just as we see the Author did in the Gospels.
-

[Sons to Glory!]

Okay and well said!

I don't think theology matters as much as a living relationship with the Lord - can't add much to that. I don't know any place in scripture that we are told, "Know accurate theology," but how many places say something about knowing the Lord? (although I guess some might say this includes accurate theology - but the word, to my knowledge, doesn't seem to emphasize knowing theology) However, if I had my druthers (interesting word . . .), I would prefer to also have accurate theology!

Was God closer to me when I thought He was 3-in-1 than when I thought He was more 1-in-3? I firmly doubt it.

In any case, I appreciate those that strive for accurate theology. I hope they also "taste and see that the Lord is good." (BTW: we enjoyed singing that old song just this morning at brothers' breakfast!)