Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Ransom]

In another thread, PappaBear challenged:

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma.  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions seeing their holy father, John Calvin, burned Servetus at the stake for being a Baptist against infant baptism and holding an adoptionist view of the Trinity.  Bring a JW or Mormon for them to debate, limited to using only the NIV, and watch the cultists trash them.

In my response, I asked him to start this thread, but I decided instead to take the initiative. I will be more than happy to prove the orthodox doctrine of the Trinity from the NIV exclusively. I will be using the 1984 edition.

First, two questions for PappaBear to establish the parameters of my response:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Please provide your definition of the Trinity that constitutes "the orthodox view." I could provide my own, or infer one from your previous post; however, I would rather you explicitly spell one out, in this very thread.
[*]Will you agree that if I can show from the NIV exclusively that it teaches the orthodox view of the Trinity, per your provided definition, that your challenge has been met?
[/list]

When PappaBear proves a definition per question 1, and answers question 2 in the affirmative, I will begin preparing my response.

 

[rsc2a]

Maybe you want to move this to the formal debate thread and disallow commentators until after you two are finished?

 

[Ransom]

Maybe you want to move this to the formal debate thread and disallow commentators until after you two are finished?

That doesn't really concern me.

 

[PappaBear]

Ransom, you seem slightly different, a little more mature here.  Is it the admin powers thing?  Or has something happened in your life while I have been away?

You may recall that my last understanding of your testimony is that you only had a Hyper-Calvinist covenant salvation style of profession where you had "never come to faith" but had "always been a Christian."  Believing John 3 to be inspired, I am still of the belief that "Ye must be born again."  Your lack of that new birth experience still restrains my interaction with you to a witness of the grace of God and your need for repentance and faith in Christ. 

Secondly, I lack the time.  Things are very busy for me, lately.  My "forum time" is much more restricted, and I suspect that my KJVO position, in light of the open antagonism and paralyzing fear of Bible believers shared by the administration of this forum, will likely reduce my time here even further.

Lastly, I am a believer in the orthodox Trinitarian view.  All 3 are consubstantial, equal, as the Athanasian creed puts it, "Such as the Father is; such is the Son; and such is the Holy Ghost."  As such, it would be relatively easy to "prove to me" what I already believe.  But since Avery, so you say, holds to a different Trinitarian view, perhaps you could challenge him?  If indeed he holds a modalistic view, then he would be more apt to defend it.  But since he is so strong on the Johannine Comma, I doubt that he holds the view you accuse him of.  In that case, you are better to find a JW or Mormon who honestly holds to a non-Trinitarian view and is experienced at defending that.  I am sure they would much rather debate you from a weakened NIV than from the King James Bible.

Remember, Pray daily...

 

[Timothy]

You may recall that my last understanding of your testimony is that you only had a Hyper-Calvinist covenant salvation style of profession where you had "never come to faith" but had "always been a Christian."  Believing John 3 to be inspired, I am still of the belief that "Ye must be born again."  Your lack of that new birth experience still restrains my interaction with you to a witness of the grace of God and your need for repentance and faith in Christ.

Is this true Ransom?

 

[Ransom]

Is this true Ransom?

No, not really.

 

[Ransom]

Ransom, you seem slightly different, a little more mature here.  Is it the admin powers thing?  Or has something happened in your life while I have been away?

I don't seen an answer here to either of my questions.  I guess that your challenge to argue a case for the Trinity from a modern Bible, without appealing to the Johannine Comma, wasn't a seriously meant one. Fine, I'll spend my time on other endeavours.

 

[PappaBear]

You may recall that my last understanding of your testimony is that you only had a Hyper-Calvinist covenant salvation style of profession where you had "never come to faith" but had "always been a Christian."  Believing John 3 to be inspired, I am still of the belief that "Ye must be born again."  Your lack of that new birth experience still restrains my interaction with you to a witness of the grace of God and your need for repentance and faith in Christ.

Is this true Ransom?

No, not really.

Is this "No, not really" as in you have been born again and come to faith in Christ since your post on Don's FFF so that I can embrace you as a brother in Christ?

Or is this "No, not really" as in you would prefer not to discuss those details knowing that many on this board, and even modern Calvinists, oppose a covenantal soteriology where you are redeemed without "coming to faith"?

Or is it a bald-faced lie denying that your "testimony" freely given in response to Elizabeth's thread on Don's FFF expressly stated that there was not a time that you could say you had ever "come to faith" and that you came from a Christian family and had been a Christian for as long as you could remember?  There are a few on this board who will recall that, even though it is from years ago. 

Ransom, I am willing to discuss faith in Christ with you.  If indeed it is your denial of what you previously stated, how about tell us about your new birth?

 

[Ransom]

Is this "No, not really" as in you have been born again and come to faith in Christ since your post on Don's FFF so that I can embrace you as a brother in Christ?

No, it's "no, not really" as in "PappaBear isn't telling the truth."

 

[PappaBear]

Is this "No, not really" as in you have been born again and come to faith in Christ since your post on Don's FFF so that I can embrace you as a brother in Christ?

No, it's "no, not really" as in "PappaBear isn't telling the truth."

I thought as much.  For those who remember the long threads that testimonial of yours generated, lies are not unexpected from one lacking the new birth.  And obviously, your response to an opportunity of giving your testimony of faith in Christ is, "No, not really."  Any wonder why?

Pray daily for ...

 

[Ransom]

I thought as much.  For those who remember the long threads that testimonial of yours generated, lies are not unexpected from one lacking the new birth.

I didn't believe you back then, and still don't believe you now. And now you know why.

 

[PappaBear]

I thought as much.  For those who remember the long threads that testimonial of yours generated, lies are not unexpected from one lacking the new birth.

I didn't believe you back then, and still don't believe you now. And now you know why.

Simple yes or no question, Ransom.  Have you ever had a conversion experience where you "came to faith"?

 

[Timothy]

Is this "No, not really" as in you have been born again and come to faith in Christ since your post on Don's FFF so that I can embrace you as a brother in Christ?

No, it's "no, not really" as in "PappaBear isn't telling the truth."

I thought as much.  For those who remember the long threads that testimonial of yours generated, lies are not unexpected from one lacking the new birth.  And obviously, your response to an opportunity of giving your testimony of faith in Christ is, "No, not really."  Any wonder why?

Pray daily for ...

Do you have proof? Links? Anything?

 

[Ransom]

Never mind PappaSmear, Timothy. I called his bluff, and now he's trying to weasel out of it.

 

[PappaBear]

Is this "No, not really" as in you have been born again and come to faith in Christ since your post on Don's FFF so that I can embrace you as a brother in Christ?

No, it's "no, not really" as in "PappaBear isn't telling the truth."

I thought as much.  For those who remember the long threads that testimonial of yours generated, lies are not unexpected from one lacking the new birth.  And obviously, your response to an opportunity of giving your testimony of faith in Christ is, "No, not really."  Any wonder why?

Pray daily for ...

Do you have proof? Links? Anything?

Yes, I do.  His non-answer to a very direct question.

 

[Ransom]

Yes, I do.  His non-answer to a very direct question.

Speaking of non-answers to very direct questions . . .

First, two questions for PappaBear to establish the parameters of my response:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Please provide your definition of the Trinity that constitutes "the orthodox view." I could provide my own, or infer one from your previous post; however, I would rather you explicitly spell one out, in this very thread.
[*]Will you agree that if I can show from the NIV exclusively that it teaches the orthodox view of the Trinity, per your provided definition, that your challenge has been met?
[/list]

When PappaBear proves a definition per question 1, and answers question 2 in the affirmative, I will begin preparing my response.

No need to allow Pappa hijack this thread.  Stay on-topic, please.

 

[Ransom]

Also, have I mentioned PappaBear's hilarious propensity to say outrageous things as if they were true, then get all huffy and go on the attack when facts are asked for?

John Calvin was gay. LOL!
Michel Servetus was a Baptist. Go on, pull the other one!
Ransom is a hyper-Calvinist. Bwahahaha!

First, two questions for PappaBear to establish the parameters of my response:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Please provide your definition of the Trinity that constitutes "the orthodox view." I could provide my own, or infer one from your previous post; however, I would rather you explicitly spell one out, in this very thread.
[*]Will you agree that if I can show from the NIV exclusively that it teaches the orthodox view of the Trinity, per your provided definition, that your challenge has been met?
[/list]

When PappaBear proves a definition per question 1, and answers question 2 in the affirmative, I will begin preparing my response.

On the bottom line, PappaBear is just another loudmouthed KJV-only clown.  He should take his hot air and use it to inflate balloons. That's what clowns are good for.

 

[FSSL]

This is a very strange reaction from someone who is committed to the orthodox view of the Trinity!
Does PappaBear have 1 John 5:7 as his only proof of the Trinity?
His non-responses certainly give that impression!

 

[Timothy]

This is a very strange reaction from someone who is committed to the orthodox view of the Trinity!
Does PappaBear have 1 John 5:7 as his only proof of the Trinity?
His non-responses certainly give that impression!

Surly PappaBear knows of 1 Peter 1:1–2, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and others like those found in both the KJV and NIV.

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." 2 Corinthians 13:14

Not to mention, Characteristics are shared all over scripture - allowing us to conclude they work together as one.

like, for example, all three are "All knowing"
Father: 1 John 3:20 "If our hearts condemn us, we know that God is greater than our hearts, and he knows everything."
Son: John 16:30 "Now we can see that you know all things and that you do not even need to have anyone ask you questions. This makes us believe that you came from God."
Holy Spirit: 1 Cor. 2:10-11 "these are the things God has revealed to us by his Spirit. The Spirit searches all things, even the deep things of God."

or, all three are "Called God"
Father: Philippians 1:2 "Grace and peace to you from God our Father and the Lord Jesus Christ."
Son: "For in Christ all the fullness of the Deity lives in bodily form"
Holy Spirit: Acts 5:3-4 "Then Peter said, "Ananias, how is it that Satan has so filled your heart that you have lied to the Holy Spirit and have kept for yourself some of the money you received for the land?"

We serve one God, not many. Without the Trinity would not the Father, the Son, and the Holy Spirit be three Gods? But, even Jesus says in John 10:30 "I and the Father are one.”

 

[Ransom]

Surly PappaBear knows of 1 Peter 1:1–2, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and others like those found in both the KJV and NIV.

PappaBear's "argument" is that unless you have one particular verse (i.e. 1 John 5:7-8 as found in the KJV), you can't actually defend the orthodox view of the Trinity (even though the great Trinitarian apologists of the early centuries of the Church didn't use it).