Romans 9:5

Originally posted by RJHinds
Obviously there are three Persons, if we use common sense.

And if we use the Holy Bible we realize that we cannot let "common sense" transcend the word of God which nowhere speaks of Person/s one, two, three or more.

Notice sometimes the Lord Jesus use a numeral word like "one" or "two" but He really didn't say one or two WHAT.

IE. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

IE. "And in your law also it has been written that the testimony of two men is true: I am One who testifies concerning Myself, and the Father who sent Me testifies converning Me." (JOhn 8:17.18)

In the first instance the Lord Jesus did not say "I and My Father are one Person.

And the second instance He did not say He was was testifying Persons and His Father was the second testifying Person.

He just said "One" and "I am One ... and the Father".

Our "common sense" here does not rise to the level of God's revelation but is only somewhat of a limited help. And we should not let our limited "common sense" be the teacher of God rather than submit our minds to His revelation first.

Martin Luther (A.D. 1483-1546)

" For this article [the Trinity] is very slippery, first because of its subtlety, then also because of our weakness. It is, therefore, complete folly and a most perilous undertaking to wish to search into these things more subtly. For if we could do this, we would not need the Scriptures for a guide. No, neither would this Teacher and King be necessary for us. Moreover, those who neglect the Scriptures and approach such questions with confidence in their own mental power are the teachers of God, not His pupils ... If reason disturbs you here and questions arise like those of the Turks: Are there, then, two gods? answer: There is only one God, and still there is the Father and the Son. How is this possible? Respond with humility: I do not know . . . . Our reason is blind and unable to see such great things . . . shame on you, disgraceful reason! How can we miserable, poor mortals comprehend this mystery.?"

I do not know HOW a SON given could be the Father of eternity.

Neither do I know HOW "the Word [ Who ] was with God and ... was God " could possibly utter the words "My God, my God, Why have You forsaken Me?"

I let God's word speak and don't let "common sense" dictate that His word is impossible here. He said it is impossible for God that He should lie (Heb. 6:18).

Originally posted by sonship
And if we use the Holy Bible we realize that we cannot let "common sense" transcend the word of God which nowhere speaks of Person/s one, two, three or more.

Notice sometimes the Lord Jesus use a numeral word like [b]"one" or "two" but He really didn't say one or two WHAT.

IE. "I and the Father are one." (John 10:30)

IE. [ ...[text shortened]... word is impossible here. He said it is impossible for God that He should lie (Heb. 6:18).[/b]

Well, you or Witness Lee do not know that the Son is the Father, because the clear word of scripture does not say such a thing. The clear word of scripture distinguishes the Son from the Father.

A man and woman joined in marriage are said to be "one' and nobody in his right mind would say they are one person. We know they are two distinct persons united for the purpose of marriage. In like manner, we know that the Father and Son are two distinct Persons, united with one purpose.

This has been the traditional understanding of the universal Christian Church for at least 1600 years as it was set down in the Christian Creeds, such as the Doctrine of the Trinity, to bind the Church together by this truth. Witness Lee or your belief on the matter is not going to change it, because Christ stated that the gates of hell will not prevail over His Christian Church.

Originally posted by RJHinds
Well, you or Witness Lee do not know that the Son is the Father, because the clear word of scripture does not say such a thing. The clear word of scripture distinguishes the Son from the Father.

A man and woman joined in marriage are said to be "one' and nobody in his right mind would say they are one person. We know they are two distinct persons united ...[text shortened]... nge it, because Christ stated that the gates of hell will not prevail over His Christian Church.

Well, you or Witness Lee do not know that the Son is the Father,

Sure we do.

Our experience has been not at all unlike the audience of Paul's letter to the Romans. There he speaks of the indwelling One as the Spirit of God = the Spirit of Christ = Christ Himself = the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

And in Ephesians he wrote of the God and Father of all who is in all (all the members of the Body of Christ).

Your statement seems to directly contradicts John 14:20 -

"In that day you will know that I am in My Father, and you in Me, and I in you."

In fact NOW after having received the Lord Jesus, we do see how the Son given could be called the Eternal Father. And it is both Wonderful and an enjoyment and salvation.

Maybe you need more experience. You're pretty heavy on the Young Earth creationist science stuff. Maybe you should seek to enjoy the indwelling Spirit of Christ - the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead, more.

Originally posted by sonship

Well, you or Witness Lee do not know that the Son is the Father,

Sure we do.

Our experience has been not at all unlike the audience of Paul's letter to the Romans. There he speaks of the indwelling One as the Spirit of God = the Spirit of Christ = Christ Himself = the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead.

And in Ephesi ...[text shortened]... oy the indwelling Spirit of Christ - the Spirit of the One Who raised Jesus from the dead, more.

The apostle Paul admitted he did not know it all when he wrote,

For now we see in a mirror, dimly, but then face to face. Now I know in part, but then I shall know just as I also am known.

And now abide faith, hope, love, these three; but the greatest of these is love.

(1 Corinthians 13:12-13 NKJV)

We don't know it all either, so let us not get so puffed up with pride that we think we are so wise and enlightened that we know better than the many early Church members that accepted the truth of the early Christian creeds.

HalleluYah !!! Praise the LORD! Holy! Holy! Holy!

This is a good hymn which I think proposes the healthiest attitude towards God illuminating the Scriptures to successive generations.

The Lord Has Yet More Light and Truth To Break Forth From His Word

We limit not the truth of God To our poor reach of mind,
By notions of our day and sect, Crude, partial and confined.
Now let a new and better hope Within our hearts be stirred.
The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from His word.

Who dares to bind by his dull sense The oracles of heaven,
For all the nations, tongues And climes and all the ages given?!
The universe how much unknown! That ocean unexplored!
The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from His word.

Darkling our great forefathers went The first steps of the way;
'Twas but the dawning yet to grow Into the perfect day;
And grow it shall, our glorious Sun more fervid rays afford;
The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from His word.

The valleys past, ascending still Our souls would higher climb,
And look down from supernal heights, On all the bygone times;
Upward we press, the air is clear, And the sphere music heard!
The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from His word.

O Father, Son and Spirit, send us increase from above;
Enlarge, expand all Christian hearts To comprehend Thy love;
And make us all go on to know With nobler powers conferred:
The Lord hath yet more light and truth to break forth from His word.

Hymn # 817 [Living Stream Ministry Hymns, Source George Rawson, Composer Clement W. Poole]

Originally posted by sonship
This is a good hymn which I think proposes the healthiest attitude towards God illuminating the Scriptures to successive generations.

[b]The Lord Has Yet More Light and Truth To Break Forth From His Word

[quote]
We limit not the truth of God To our poor reach of mind,
By notions of our day and sect, Crude, partial and confined.
Now let a n ...[text shortened]... mn # 817 [Living Stream Ministry Hymns, Source George Rawson, Composer Clement W. Poole][/b]

This is also a favorite Hymn of the More Light Presbyterians.

More Light churches endorse the mission statement:

"Following the risen Christ, and seeking to make the Church a true community of hospitality, the mission of More Light Presbyterians is the full participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry, and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Light_Presbyterians

Originally posted by RJHinds

This is also a favorite Hymn of the More Light Presbyterians.

More Light churches endorse the mission statement:

"Following the risen Christ, and seeking to make the Church a true community of hospitality, the mission of More Light Presbyterians is the full participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people of faith in the life, ministry, and witness of the Presbyterian Church (USA)."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/More_Light_Presbyterians

I am glad that you brought out that the song is enjoyed and probably written by someone in the denominations.

To make a link between that and the other matters is wild jump attempting to connect a good attitude about the Word of God and the clearly specified works of the flesh mentioned in the NT.

You show yourself a good inventor of guilt by association. Your sleazy tactics have been honed and perfected.

Because some Presbyterians preach participation in the works of the flesh, THEREFORE the hymn on an open heart to new light on His word is bad.

You have attempted to TWIST the purpose of the hymn to mean anything goes in living in the flesh.

You are indeed sleazy and adept at slanderous innuendos.

" The Lord has yet more light and truth to break forth from His word" does not mean that He will speak the OPPOSITE of what He has said in the past. We cannot use this sentiment to endorse atheism. Nor can we use it to endorse the works of the flesh which Paul enumerated which cause one to miss the kingdom reward.

But since you wish to be sleazy you might know that plenty of people practicing "The Old Time Religion" are caught in adultery and stealing and other failures of the flesh as well.

Some of them would do well to know that the Lord Jesus is actually living in them and that the Lord is the Spirit. They need not struggle against the flesh in their own fruitless power. But they need to stand upon the facts in faith - Jesus Christ is living in them.

It is not just about going to Heaven one day, as the "Old Time Religion" stresses incessantly week after week.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] This is also a favorite Hymn of the More Light Presbyterians.

More Light churches endorse the mission statement:

"Following the risen Christ, and seeking to make the Church a true community of hospitality, the mission of More Light Presbyterians is the full participation of gay, lesbian, bisexual, and transgender people of faith in the life, mi ...[text shortened]... about going to Heaven one day, as the "Old Time Religion" stresses incessantly week after week.

We should not use any Hymn to promote anything contrary to the faith delivered to the Saints. That should include not promoting a heretical doctrine, such as, Jesus, the Son of God, is also His very own Father.

Originally posted by RJHinds
We should not use any Hymn to promote anything contrary to the faith delivered to the Saints. That should include not promoting a heretical doctrine, such as, Jesus, the Son of God, is also His very own Father.

His name shall be called Eternal Father - Isaiah 9:6.

The heretical doctrine is forsaking that in favor of "Old Time Religion" which you assume would teach that the Son should not be called Eternal Father.

So where the Bible says "be called" you heretically deny the word of God and say "should not be ever called."

Originally posted by sonship
His name shall be called Eternal Father - [b]Isaiah 9:6.

The heretical doctrine is forsaking that in favor of "Old Time Religion" which you assume would teach that the Son should not be called Eternal Father.

So where the Bible says "be called" you heretically deny the word of God and say "should not be ever called."[/b]

Jesus has been called many things. However, not all of the things He has been called are correct. How do you know that translation is correct and that it refers to God the Father?

Originally posted by RJHinds
Jesus has been called many things. However, not all of the things He has been called are correct. How do you know that translation is correct and that it refers to God the Father?

Now you could just keep asking -

"Well, how do you know that?"
"But HOW do you know that?"
"But how do you know THAT?"

That is an iterative skeptic's tactic, to just keep asking "Well, how do you know that?"

No, He was called a drunken man, crazy (beside Himself), Beelzebub, and a demon possessed teacher. True. That furnishes no excuse to disbelieve the positive things God says He will be called in Isaiah's prophecy.

The fact of the matter is that even if you wished to hide behind a poor translation of Isaiah 9:6 it is appropriate to at least some time consider the Son to be called the Father because of John 14:9-11.

Including the words that Jesus said "Have I been so long a time with you and you have not known ME, Philip?" (v.9) at the request that Jesus SHOW them "the Father (v.8)."

If calling Jesus "the Father" would not be confusing at every time in the New Testament, it would be logical in this time. And the evangelist John knew what he was writing. And it would be consistent with the prophecy of the Son given being called Eternal Father from the prophet Isaiah.

It would be as logical as calling Him "Prince of Peace" at many times yet realizing that He is a Man of War in Revelation 19.

Calling Jesus Prince of Peace while He is treading the wine press of the wrath of God in Revelation 19 might conceivably be in-conguent at that moment. Yet He is STILL called Prince of Peace. It certainly would not be in-congruent in many other times demonstrating His bringing of peace to the world.

And calling Jesus "Eternal Father" while He cries "My God, my God, Why have you forsaken Me?" on the cross, would be perplexing. It would not be so in many other places were He is perfectly expressing the Father become a man.

This renders all the truth of Him being called "Wonderful, Counselor, Mighty God, Eternal Father, Prince of Peace" .

I see no excuse for saying He should NOT be called any of those titles which God ordained are His identity. It is not as if it was human opinion that "He shall be called" this or that, but God's sovereign design. IE. "The zeal of Jehovah shall accomplish this"

At any rate, opposition to Isaiah 9:6 on grounds of "How do you know?" are weak when all things are considered and would not erase the clear evangelist's record that Jesus plainly revealed that to see Him was to see the Father, so how could they ask otherwise (John 14:9-11).

How about we just confess that He is indeed "Wonderful" , full of Wonder and astounding, beyond our powers to fully comprehend, but not beyond His ability to be "unto us" ?

Originally posted by sonship
Now you could just keep asking -

"Well, how do you know that?"
"But HOW do you know that?"
"But how do you know THAT?"

That is an iterative skeptic's tactic, to just keep asking "Well, how do you know that?"

No, He was called a drunken man, crazy (beside Himself), Beelzebub, and a demon possessed teacher. True. That furnishes no ex ...[text shortened]... ding, beyond our powers to fully comprehend, but not beyond His ability to be [b]"unto us" ?[/b]

But we already know from other scripture that Jesus is the Son of God so he can't be His own Father too. So that scripture about the "eternal father" or the "father of eternity" must mean something different from that. I believe it must mean that he will be like a father to all the born again believers that he resurrects to eternal life or something like that.

Originally posted by RJHinds
But we already know from other scripture that Jesus is the Son of God so he can't be His own Father too. So that scripture about the "eternal father" or the "father of eternity" must mean something different from that. I believe it must mean that he will be like a father to all the born again believers that he resurrects to eternal life or something like that.

But we already know from other scripture that Jesus is the Son of God so he can't be His own Father too. So that scripture about the "eternal father" or the "father of eternity" must mean something different from that. I believe it must mean that he will be like a father to all the born again believers that he resurrects to eternal life or something like that.

Isn't it the case that before you knew the Lord Jesus you did not know the Father?

Isn't it the case that God was not real to you subjectively until the moment that Jesus came into your life ?

I agree that "His own Father" is too much for the human mind to imagine.
But apart from Jesus I would have never known the Father.

We do not have a passage saying that Jesus is His own Father. But we DO have a passage saying that the son given shall be called Eternal Father.

While we do not have a passage saying that the Father begot Himself, we do have a verses saying the son given shall be called eternal Father. So why not we just say "Amen!" to God in trust ?

I will let this post stand alone. Perhaps in another post I will explain why I believe that there is only ONE Divine Eternal Father in the Bible. And He is the Father of the Godhead of Father - Son - Holy Spirit.

In other words I do not attempt to solve any problems with Isaiah 9:6 by proposing that there is more than one divine Father who is eternal in the Bible.

But for this post, I don't know about you, but it was when I opened my heart to Jesus Christ that the eternal God became real in my experience. They are absolutely inseparable - the Father and the Son.

Originally posted by sonship
[quote] But we already know from other scripture that Jesus is the Son of God so he can't be His own Father too. So that scripture about the "eternal father" or the "father of eternity" must mean something different from that. I believe it must mean that he will be like a father to all the born again believers that he resurrects to eternal life or something ...[text shortened]... rnal God became real in my experience. They are absolutely inseparable - the Father and the Son.

I agree that there is only ONE Divine Eternal Father in the Bible. And He is the Father of the Godhead of Father - Son - Holy Spirit.

That is why I say the Only begotten Son of God can not be the One Eternal Father. To say that the Son is the Father is prohibited by the Trinity Doctrine and is heresy. So there must be another meaning than what Witness Lee gives it. I gave one possible explanation that is orthodox and not heretical.

Originally posted by RJHinds

That is why I say the Only begotten Son of God can not be the One Eternal Father.

But if He is to be called "Eternal Father" as the "Son ... given to us" but He is not that which He is called, then the word of God is lying.

And if you continue along that line of logic then He may be called Mighty God but in fact He cannot be and is not. How could the Creator of the universe be nine months in the womb of a woman undergoing the process of birth?

And if you continue along that line of logic then He may be called "Prince of Peace" but He is not REALLY so. Then the word of God is speaking a lie.

No, we will not go down this road with you, ie. He is CALLED something but He is NOT that which He is called.

I would rather confess that I cannot explain the mysterious nature of God. But I believe the Scripture.

To say that the Son is the Father is prohibited by the Trinity Doctrine and is heresy.

The Scriptures say "For a child is born to us, A son is given to us".
The Scriptures say that the child will be called "Mighty God".

If you believe that the Creator, the Mighty God who created all things and upholds, maintains, and sustains the universe was a human child in a human woman's womb, then you believe the word of God. If you do not believe it, like the orthodox Jew or the Moslem or the Jehovah's Witness, then you simply reject Isaiah 9:6.

If you do believe that the Mighty God was in a woman's womb attached to a umbilical cord, in the fluid of his mother ... the "MIGHTY GOD"! then you believe the word of God.

And from there, if you have settled it in your heart that this "impossible" thing has occurred, then you can also believe that the Eternal Father was given to us as the "son" .

If someone says "But HOW can He be His own Father?" my answer is "I do not know and neither can I explain. He is Wonderful."

But if we follow your reasoning that it cannot be then we should also object just as much to "the Word was with God and the Word was God" (John 1:1)

Limited human reasoning would say "Either He was with God OR He was God. He cannot be both." But the Scriptures affirms both.

And limited human reasoning would say "Either He is the Son of God or He is the Father. He cannot be both." But Isaiah 9:6 and John 14:9,10 affirm that to see Him is to see the Father.

We know that in other places in Scripture the Son is distinct from the Father. You assume that other passages are being ignored about the Father and His Son. They are not being ignored. They are both sides of the truth being accepted because God has testified to both.

So there must be another meaning than what Witness Lee gives it. I gave one possible explanation that is orthodox and not heretical.

If the Son given is NOT to be called Eternal Father, then you have to say that Isaiah 9:6 is heretical. We would rather bear the perplexity and if necessary ridicule of the natural mind than disbelieve the passages.

By the way, the word "ORTHODOXY" literally means something very close to straight footed. It implies a WALK. What some of us give attention to is how does the belief that the Son is the incarnation of the Father effect our spiritual WALK.

When we confess the word without disbelief and walk in that light our walk becomes straight footed for the power of His word enables us to live in Him. It straightens my walk in the Lord to confess that the Son is the Father living in me. He is unto me indeed. And He is too Wonderful.

In saying this, I realize that believing other passages about the distinction of the Father from the Son I also need and do not suppress them. For "Wonderful" is full of wonder, higher than our powers to explain, but not beyond our enjoyment.

The Father is in the Christians - "One God and Father of all, who is over all and through all and in all." (Eph. 4:6)

The Son is also in the Christians - "But if Christ is in you ..." (Romans 8:10a) .

So the Father is in us Christians and the Son is in us Christians.
Do you believe you can tell any difference?
Do you believe you can detect any separation?
We cannot detect any separation between Them.

We are caught on both sides of the mystery by Romans 8:9-11. For there is One Divine living Being who is indwelling us. And this One is called " Christ [Who is] ... in you" (v.10) and "the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead [Who] dwells in you" (v.11)

Christ is in us and the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead is in us.

On one hand if we say that this Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead is the Father, then the Christ indwelling us is also the Father.

But if to avoid that we say that the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead is instead the Holy Spirit, then we Christ indwelling us is also the Holy Spirit indwelling us.

Either way of trying to separate the Three of the Triune God you cannot in this experiential passage. One living God indwells the believers. He is the Spirit of God who is the Spirit of Christ who is Christ Himself who is the Spirit of the One who raised Jesus from the dead.

Witness Lee was right on to bring out to God's people this marvelous fact.
And in doing so has helped many of us have a straight footed walk more so than if we were just occupied with keeping neat creedal axioms from being ruffled.