Lee and LC: Home Runs and Strikeouts

[Ohio]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Conclusion

The LC has always been a perplexing blend of the very good, the so-so and the very bad. Unfortunately, there is more bad than good. The good attracts people to the group and keeps them hanging around believing it is something special. The bad meanwhile damages them and their ability to love and fellowship with other Christians, and thus prevents them from fulfilling their true destiny. People need to be aware of these facts.

Igzy, thanks much for this! Great fellowship here for all LC members, former and current! Once again Igzy has provided us much needed perspective on our common LC experiences.

I would only add that it is extremely unhealthy for us not to recognize the good which we found in the LC's. It is a lifelong lesson for us to learn to thank the Lord for all the good and all the bad. We have a good, good Father, who loves us to the uttermost!

[Cal]

Originally Posted by Ohio

Igzy, thanks much for this! Great fellowship here for all LC members, former and current! Once again Igzy has provided us much needed perspective on our common LC experiences.

I would only add that it is extremely unhealthy for us not to recognize the good which we found in the LC's. It is a lifelong lesson for us to learn to thank the Lord for all the good and all the bad. We have a good, good Father, who loves us to the uttermost!

Hey, good to "see" you guys again, Ohio! Yes, our Father above all is good. He never sacrifices people for institutions, whether they be someone's ministry or someone's version of church. People always come first to him. That's who he died for.

[OBW]

On the Triune God . . .

I have come to realize that the confusing analysis provided in the Athanasian creed is almost more meaningful than the standard evangelical doctrine of the trinity. And much more on the mark than Lee's "they're just one."

I got more on board with the idea that there is a separation in their unity when I read the following in John 17:11

Holy Father, protect them by the power of your name, the name you gave me, so that they may be one as we are one.

If this is what we know about the "oneness" of the Father and the Son, then if they are simply the same "person," then how are we one like that? There is something in this statement that makes our ability to be one (in this world in this age) like the oneness of the Father and the Son. We know this says something about our oneness. But does it also say something (not everything) about the oneness of God?

I realize that this is just one statement of several from which we learn about the nature of God. And each is given in a context and is not revealing everything about what we call the Trinity (and therefore cannot be construed as simply the rest of the story). But this claim of a well-defined doctrine of the Trinity is more like a committee effort. Lee's was worse than the regular definition. But Athanasius got it better than either. It is Three, and it is One. Don't conflate the one or compress the three. Accept it as it is . . . something beyond our understanding. Triune is not "simply one." Nor is it simply three. It is Three and it is One — in a way that we cannot fully comprehend.

[OBW]

BTW.

I really like your analysis of "impersonal transformation." We must each be transformed though our active participation, spoken of in Romans 8 as "walking." Not just basking in a trickle of "dispensing."

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

BTW.

I really like your analysis of "impersonal transformation." We must each be transformed though our active participation, spoken of in Romans 8 as "walking." Not just basking in a trickle of "dispensing."

Thanks Mike! Good to hear from you again, too!

[UntoHim]

Many thanks to our resident Sheep Dog for preforming a much needed, long overdue forum face lift. Also a big thanks to Igzy and the other big dog, OBW for checking back in and assisting all of us in "Making sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement".
-

[Cal]

Originally Posted by UntoHim

Many thanks to our resident Sheep Dog for preforming a much needed, long overdue forum face lift. Also a big thanks to Igzy and the other big dog, OBW for checking back in and assisting all of us in "Making sense of the Lord's Recovery Movement".
-

You are welcome! Glad to help.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

I realize that this is just one statement of several from which we learn about the nature of God. And each is given in a context and is not revealing everything about what we call the Trinity (and therefore cannot be construed as simply the rest of the story). But this claim of a well-defined doctrine of the Trinity is more like a committee effort. Lee's was worse than the regular definition. But Athanasius got it better than either. It is Three, and it is One. Don't conflate the one or compress the three. Accept it as it is . . . something beyond our understanding. Triune is not "simply one." Nor is it simply three. It is Three and it is One — in a way that we cannot fully comprehend.

I get that. The question I ask is, if we are in the image of God, how are we triune? God is the whole God, not just one of the three. So if we are truly in his image, we must be triune, too. Lame explanations like body, soul, spirit as our three don't cut it.

Years ago, I was reading an article in Time or Newsweek about Christianity. Someone was quoted in it saying, "The Trinity shows us that reality at its most fundamental level is relational." That jumped out at me, and was the seed of my realizing that the way to "understand" the Trinity is to see it, not from the aspect of substances or hypostases, but from seeing at as the result of a singular, perfect, all-knowing Being who is self-conscious.

This Being would have had, before anything else existed, a Relationship with himself. He would have a perfect relationship with and know and love everything about his perfect self. He would have a self-image, so to speak, which in him somehow (this is the part I don't understand) became Another, the Son.

The Son is what God sees when he thinks about himself, so he is the perfect "image" of God. Where did that image first exist? In God's own thought about himself. This is why the Son is the expression of God, the God we see, because he is the God that God sees.

What about the Spirit? The Spirit is the relationship between the Father and the Son. That is, the Spirit is God's experience of himself. That is why he is our experience of God, too. The Bible says the Father loves the Son. It never says the Father loves the Spirit. Why? Because the Spirit is the love between the Father and the Son. The Spirit is the essence of God because a being's essence is summed up in how he feels about himself.

We can pick up a faint notion of this, because we have a self-image and we have a relationship with our self-image. But because we are imperfect and our knowledge of ourselves is incomplete, this experience is shadowy for us. Yet, we still can have a notion of our triune-ness. I am me. My self-image is me. And my relationship with my self-image is me.

Anyway, in the beginning there was a Relationship. Somehow, within the being of the Perfect Singular Being, the principle of Relationship with Another was born. THAT is the mystery of mysteries. And from it, God's whole purpose of creating and loving others, and his intent for us to love others, were born.

This theory may be accurate, it may not. But it is a better explanation that any I've heard. If it's not true then, as C.S. Lewis said, something better is.

[Cal]

Another way to consider it is this.

It's one thing to love yourself. That's what God does, in the most healthy way, and we should, too.

But things reach a whole 'nother level when your self starts loving you back. That's what happened when the Son was begotten.

This may sound a little narcissistic to our natural ears, but we cannot deny that God loves himself completely, unreservedly, yet in the most holy way. But he is so pure that his love for himself is expressed as love for Another. And from that, his love for all of us was born. That's how great our God is! We would not even be here if he was not like that!

"Love your neighbor as yourself." Or, said another way, "Love yourself as your neighbor." So when we love our neighbors purely, in the manner God does, we are in a very real sense loving ourselves, too. Self-love which conflicts with loving others is not real love. It is fallen self-obsession.

Eventually we are to have relationships with ourselves like the Father has with the Son. I think this may be, ultimately, what "finding your soul" means. Throw in billions of others experiencing the same thing and loving each other as well, and you have God's purpose, and his glory.

[Cal]

I wanted to add another Home Run and another Strikeout for Lee.

Home Run

Grace is Christ as our enjoyment and supply for our daily life -- This is very helpful fellowship. Grace is not just the general, abstract favor of God. Grace is something living and active that we can enjoy in an ongoing way and which can sufficiently supply us to take on whatever God is requiring of us in the present. "My grace is sufficient for you," the Lord said. This means that no matter what God has placed before us, we can go through it "gracefully" and to his standard by the supply of grace. There is never a reason to make provision for the flesh as long as grace is available. This was definitely a home run by Lee.


Strikeout

One Ministry -- The logic goes like this: Christ had one ministry. Paul's ministry was the "continuation" of that one ministry. This ministry is for the building of the church and God's eternal purpose. Lee talks more than anyone about the building of the Church and God's eternal purpose. Therefore, Lee's ministry is the one true continuation of Christ's and Paul's ministry and any "other ministry" which does not submit to and echo Lee's ministry is not the one ministry and so is invalid.

Well now, that's quite a claim. Unfortunately for Lee, the Bible directly contradicts it. First Cor 12:5 plainly says there are different ministries, but the same Lord.

Lee was famous for such superficially convincing, but ultimately wacky, excursions into freestyle logic. They spoil his teachings like weevils in cornmeal. It's really amazing how someone who could be so insightful could be so equally clueless. Had he submitted his teachings in humility to vetting by the Church-at-large, he likely would have spared himself much retrospective embarrassment.

[Drake]

Originally Posted by Igzy

Another way to consider it is this.

It's one thing to love yourself. That's what God does, in the most healthy way, and we should, too.

But things reach a whole 'nother level when your self starts loving you back. That's what happened when the Son was begotten.

This may sound a little narcissistic to our natural ears, but we cannot deny that God loves himself completely, unreservedly, yet in the most holy way. But he is so pure that his love for himself is expressed as love for Another. And from that, his love for all of us was born. That's how great our God is! We would not even be here if he was not like that!

"Love your neighbor as yourself." Or, said another way, "Love yourself as your neighbor." So when we love our neighbors purely, in the manner God does, we are in a very real sense loving ourselves, too. Self-love which conflicts with loving others is not real love. It is fallen self-obsession.

Eventually we are to have relationships with ourselves like the Father has with the Son. I think this may be, ultimately, what "finding your soul" means. Throw in billions of others experiencing the same thing and loving each other as well, and you have God's purpose, and his glory.

In another thread I alluded to my concerns about lack of an accurate presentation of the truth and so in fairness I felt I should provide an example rather than just make a generalization about something the poster said. The above is an example.

Matthew 16:21-26: ^"21 From that time Jesus began to show his disciples that he must go to Jerusalem and suffer many things from the elders and chief priests and scribes, and be killed, and on the third day be raised. ²² And Peter took him aside and began to rebuke him, saying, “Far be it from you, Lord!^e]">[e] This shall never happen to you.” ²³ But he turned and said to Peter, “Get behind me, Satan! You are a hindrance^f]">[f] to me. For you are not setting your mind on the things of God, but on the things of man.”

Take Up Your Cross and Follow Jesus

²⁴ Then Jesus told his disciples, “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me. ²⁵ For whoever would save his life^g]">[g] will lose it, but whoever loses his life for my sake will find it. ²⁶ For what will it profit a man if he gains the whole world and forfeits his soul? Or what shall a man give in return for his soul?"

Though loving your neighbor as yourself implies that there is already love for oneself, the way to find your soul is not to love yourself but rather as the Lord states above it is to deny the love that issues from the self. This is not only the Lord's straightforward statement but the context also demonstrates the same teaching. The Lord was reacting to Peter's objection to His going to the cross, no doubt out of his love for the Lord, and yet this love had to be denied and put under the cross because it was a thing of man. Loving oneself is also a thing of man. Though it sounds reasonable, it is something to be denied, not embraced. It is something that must be put under the cross, not nurtured in anyway. Only then will the believer find his soul.

Drake

[OBW]

Originally Posted by Igzy

I get that. The question I ask is, if we are in the image of God, how are we triune?

I cannot say what is and what is not taking the "image of God" too far. But I would ask why we have a compelling to come to an understanding of a similarity with God in every possible way as rating something important to consider, and possibly teach and argue about.

Is reflecting God on earth about being comparable to God in every aspect? Or is it about being like and with God in our life in every meaningful way?

I am not saying that there is nothing about us that is similar to God in the way that he is Triune. Instead I question whether spending time wondering about it, trying to make scripture spell it out for us, and then treating it as an important thing to come to grasp is really a "thing" to spend our energies on.

In a broader sense, is having more and better theology important, or is obedience to the clear calling and command of Christ? Too much of the sermons, Bible studies, etc., seem to be aimed at getting a more vast (and agreed) knowledge of things about God, but too little encouragement with respect to the living that was called for from the very beginning of the biblical record all the way to its end.

And figuring out whether man is triune no longer seems important. better to understand love for the widow, orphan, poor, alien, etc., in our midst. That was commanded but appears to be ignored. Yet from the mouths of those who should live that life, we have the rhetoric of the "border wall." Not that I think that we should have no immigration policy and just let everyone in, but the angst and fire in the rhetoric from the "Christian Right" about it makes a lie out of any claim for any such love.

So I would almost bluntly say that I really don't care whether man is, like God, triune. If it is true, then it is true. If it is false, then it is false. But which ever way it is, it is what it is, and knowing about it really does not change much, if anything. Not worrying about it seems like the better choice.

[Cal]

Originally Posted by OBW

So I would almost bluntly say that I really don't care whether man is, like God, triune. If it is true, then it is true. If it is false, then it is false. But which ever way it is, it is what it is, and knowing about it really does not change much, if anything. Not worrying about it seems like the better choice.

Well, for me it answers several things. It shows how God can be one and three. And it explains why he is three, and not two or four. It fits with Lee's claim how the Son is the Father, yet distinct from him. God's self image, since it is complete and perfect, is him. Yet, it is at the same time something distinct. Somehow, God's concept of himself is, within himself, also Another. It answers why the Bible says the Father loves the Son, but never says he or the Son love the Spirit. The Spirit is the love. And it answers why relationships are so important to God, because, in the end, he is a relationship. And in the end, so are each of us. We are each a relationship with ourselves.

So to me it's very useful and helpful.

But I get your point, too. I just have the kind of mind I have. I am an INTJ. I try to figure out how everything works and then make it better. If it helps someone, that's good. If it's too much for them, I've learned not to push it. But God gave me the kind of mind I have for a reason.

When I theorize and write about stuff that seems insightful to me, I sometimes think about how Lee must have felt. I'm pretty sure he was an INTJ, too. He was probably excited about his stuff--and felt he was onto something great and had it right, because that's what INTJs do. We feel we have to do the thinking for everyone else.

So I have some idea how someone could get so excited about his theories that he feels the world can benefit and then take the next stupid level of trying to start a movement of followers around his theories because his "revelation" is unique.

Best to just put one's stuff out there in the public arena, and let people decide for themselves if they like it, and resist campaigning for it. In the end, it is the Lord's ministry that matters, not ours; and his ministry is for the Church, and the Church knows it when it sees it.