Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

we have been very compliant and gave you what we believe.

 
Actually not.  I still want to know if you believe Jesus is a human person. 

i.e. Are you an orthodox Trinitarian or an eclectic or heretical Trinitarian?

And more significantly, whether you believe God exists in three distinct eternal consciousnesses.  That will tell us more about your beliefs than any systematic theology.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You will find snippets, in Trinitarian theologies, that say Jesus is "not a human person."

The reason they say this is that it is fundamental orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. And to say Jesus is a human person is a heresy, per the orthodoxy. The reason it is sometimes snippet rather than real full exposition I would say is a type of embarrassment. It is understood that many might reject the orthodox Trinitarian construct, or at least be sorely discomfited, if they fully understood what the doctrine entails.

The reason some Trinitarians use that confusing language

The language is clear, not confusing. The difficulty is in the doctrines.

is that they are being careful so that the humanity of Jesus is not given prominence over the divine person.....

Here you are wrong.  The reason is that the acceptance of Jesus being a human person is considered the Nestorian heresy of both a divine and a human person within Jesus. "Prominence" is not the issue, the issue is the rejection of multiple persons in Jesus, once you start from the "Divine person" construct.

iI have plenty of solid Trinitarian theologies, commentaries and dictionaries that use the phrases .... "human person.".

And I asked you for quotations earlier, I would be quite surprised that any Trinitarian doctrinalist who is considered orthodox used that term about Jesus Christ.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
 

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Okay I need some clarification...Did he say that those who hold the orthodox view of the Trinity deny the humanity of Jesus?

No, despite cud the liar answering falsely.  You can accept the humanity of Jesus, as an orthodox Trinitarian, you simply can not accept that Jesus is a human person.

How that works out is up to the orthodox Trinitarians to explain. They say that the Divine Person took on the nature of a man.

If you accept that construct, you can be an orthodox Trinitarian.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[christundivided]

Hi,

Okay I need some clarification...Did he say that those who hold the orthodox view of the Trinity deny the humanity of Jesus?

No, despite cud the liar answering falsely.  You can accept the humanity of Jesus, as an orthodox Trinitarian, you simply can not accept that Jesus is a human person.

How that works out is up to the orthodox Trinitarians to explain. They say that the Divine Person took on the nature of a man.

If you accept that construct, you can be an orthodox Trinitarian.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Sure Avery... Sure. Everyone is a liar.

Here's a question that may put this to rest. I can affirm that I would baptize a new believer in Christ, in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Spirit.

Would you do the same or would simply baptize them in the name of Jesus/Christ alone?

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Steven Avery]If the essence of "the Trinity" being asked about is that God exists in three distinct, eternal consciousnesses, as it is for some, then I am non-Trinitarian.[/quote]

That would be the classical definition.

[quote author=Steven Avery]If the essence of the "the Trinity" being asked about is the recognition of distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as it is for some, then I can be considered a Trinitarian.[/quote]

If you want to redefine this scaly winged flesh-eating creature as a squirrel, then it can be considered a squirrel. Granted, no one else will be able to have a conversation with you.



In short, you have openly acknowledged that you do not accept the Trinity. So, depending on what you call yourself, you are either apostate or a heretic.  And I know I should give your opinion on spiritual matters the same amount of weight I would give to the Jehovah's Witnesses that knock on my door.

 

[Darkwing Duck]

You can accept the humanity of Jesus, as an orthodox Trinitarian, you simply can not accept that Jesus is a human person.

This is absurd.

the "humanity of Jesus" = Jesus was human
"Jesus is a human person" = Jesus was human

Both those statements mean the same thing. Having humanity is the definition of being human.

You aren't making any sense.

 

[Ransom]

You aren't making any sense.

Avery is trying to play divide-and-conquer with the actual believing Christians who affirm the Trinity.

He is taking a single clause from Louis Berkhof that says Jesus is not a "human person" and taking it to be the be-all and end-all of Trinitarian theology (as if Berkhof was the Pope of Trinitarians or something).

Of course, if you look at every instance of the phrase "human person" in his systematic theology, it's clear by the way he qualifies the term that he meant Jesus was not a mere human person. He was not merely a man, nor did the divine "take over" a human person. He was something unique: the God-Man.

The Word Merchant's straw men just don't wash with those of us who are actually biblically and theologically literate.

 

[FSSL]

I am not going to wait for Steven to give us clarity about his beliefs. We have learned that is an impossible request. So, instead of wasting my time to wait for a simple response, here is support for the "choir." I know you don't need this, but it will establish the fact that Steven MISREPRESENTS Trinitarian beliefs.

And I asked you for quotations earlier, I would be quite surprised that any Trinitarian doctrinalist who is considered orthodox used that term about Jesus Christ.

Surprise! Time for school!

Trinitatian commentators on various incarnation passages use the terms "human person" "frail humanity" "human being" "made flesh" "fully human person."

Σάρξ here denotes “all of the human person in creaturely existence as distinct from God” (Ridderbos 1997: 49; cf. Borchert 1996: 119 n. 72; Barrett 1978: 164). The powerful Word of God has been born into frail humanity (Mowvley 1984: 136). Ἐγένετο (egeneto, was made or born [more customarily, though somewhat misleadingly, rendered “became”]) does not mean “changed into” in the sense that Jesus, by becoming human, ceased to be God.64 Nor does it mean “appeared” human (pace the docetists; see Morris 1995: 90–91) or even “took on” humanity (as is suggested by Witherington [1995: 55]). The main point is that God now has chosen to be with his people in a more personal way than ever before (Carson 1991: 127). The affirmation that “the Word was made flesh” takes the opening statement in 1:1 one step further: that same Word now has been born as a human being. Though John does not elaborate on the precise way in which Jesus was made flesh, his contention that deity assumed human nature in Jesus would have been anathema for Greeks who held to a spirit/matter dualism and could hardly have imagined immaterial Reason becoming a physical being. The idea of gods appearing in human form was not uncommon to the ancients. But John makes clear that the Word did not merely become manifest as an apparition—as was alleged by the docetists (from δοκέω, dokeō, seem)—but literally was made flesh (Talbert 1992: 74; cf. Pagels 1999; Grappe 2000). Köstenberger, A. J. (2004). John. Baker Exegetical Commentary on the New Testament (40–41). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Academic.


The best historical guess is that they were Gentile converts who had been influenced by the emerging gnostic ideas of the Hellenistic world, and who had never really given up their Greek philosophical world view. It had led them to deny that the divine savior, the Christ, was ever embodied in the fully human person, Jesus. For them, the divine Logos (the Word) could not have become flesh and dwelt among us (John 1:14). Johnson, T. F. (2011). 1, 2, and 3 John. Understanding the Bible Commentary Series (57). Grand Rapids, MI: Baker Books.

Trinitarian Bible Dictionaries also use various terms that include "fully human person."

When this is seen in relation to the anti-docetic affirmation of 1 John 1:1, it is clear that the Johannine writer(s) understood Jesus as a fully human person in the same way that all others were understood to be human. Gregg, D. L. (2000). Incarnation. In D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck (Eds.), Eerdmans dictionary of the Bible (D. N. Freedman, A. C. Myers & A. B. Beck, Ed.) (634). Grand Rapids, MI: W.B. Eerdmans.

Trinitarian Theologians (older and newer) use various terms that include "human person," "fully human" "Jesus was personal as a man"

But moreover, in Matt. 3:16, the three persons all attest their presence at once—the Father, in His voice from heaven; the Son, in His human person; the Spirit, in the descending dove. Dabney, R. L. (1996). Systematic Theology (electronic ed. based on the Banner of Truth 1985 ed.) (229). Simpsonville SC: Christian Classics Foundation.

What then was the primary purpose of Jesus’ virginal conception? Before I respond directly to this question, it is appropriate to point out that Jesus’ conception in a human mother’s womb, although virginal in nature, followed by his normal development in that human mother’s womb, and his altogether normal passage from that human womb into the world at birth, as recorded in both Matthew and Luke, are features of his human origination which insure and guarantee to us that Jesus was and is truly and fully human. Reymond, R. L. (1998). A new systematic theology of the Christian faith (552). Nashville: T. Nelson.

This construction of Christ’s person as “one person with two natures,” with the person being that of the Son of the intra-Trinitarian Unity, has brought the charge from some modern quarters that the Definition is docetic or at least reductionistic in that it denies to the human nature a human personality. This charge requires a response.
While it is true that the Definition denies that the Son of God, already a person within the Trinity, took into union with himself a human person, insisting rather that he took into union with himself a full complex of human attributes (the doctrine known as the anhypostasia, literally, “no person”), these fathers would never for a moment have thought of Jesus, as a man, as being an impersonal human being. Jesus was personal, as a man, by virtue of the union of his manness in the person of the Son. In other words, as a person, the Son of God gave personal identity to the human nature which he had assumed without losing or compromising his divine nature. Never for a moment did the man Jesus exist apart from the union of natures in the one divine person, but then this means as well that the man Jesus from the moment of conception was personal by virtue of the union of the human nature in the divine Son. Reymond, R. L. (1998). A new systematic theology of the Christian faith (610). Nashville: T. Nelson.

And, though we can sometimes distinguish actions of his divine nature and actions of his human nature in order to help us understand some of the statements and actions recorded in Scripture, the Bible itself does not say “Jesus’ human nature did this” or “Jesus’ divine nature did that,” as though they were separate persons, but always talks about what the person of Christ did. Therefore, the church continued to insist that Jesus was one person, although possessing both a human nature and a divine nature. Grudem, W. A. (2004). Systematic theology: An introduction to biblical doctrine (555). Leicester, England; Grand Rapids, MI: Inter-Varsity Press; Zondervan Pub. House.

 

[FSSL]

Jesus demonstrated that He was a man.

• Jesus experienced a human birth: "This is how the birth of Jesus Christ came about: Mt 1:18
• Jesus experienced mental, physical, spiritual, and social growth: And Jesus grew in wisdom and stature, and in favor with God and men. Luke 2:52
• Jesus experienced human emotions. Jesus wept. John 11:35
• Jesus experienced human limitations. Jesus, tired as he was from the journey, sat down by the well. John 4:6

 

[FSSL]

Of course, if you look at every instance of the phrase "human person" in his systematic theology, it's clear by the way he qualifies the term that he meant Jesus was not a mere human person. He was not merely a man, nor did the divine "take over" a human person. He was something unique: the God-Man.

The Word Merchant's straw men just don't wash with those of us who are actually biblically and theologically literate.

Very true. His selective snipping and constant claim that the qualifications are peripheral to the discussion is absurd. But then again, stop bullying him! <-sarcasm

 

[T-Bone]

Simplicity is my friend, at least...

Jesus is fully God and fully human.
God the Father is God
God the Son is God
God the Holy Spirit is God
And these three are one!
These three are distinct in their persons: the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

I am Trinitarian!

 

[Ransom]

Simplicity is my friend, at least...

Jesus is fully God and fully human.
God the Father is God
God the Son is God
God the Holy Spirit is God
And these three are one!

I am Trinitarian!

Don't forget, however, that a comprehensive definition of the Trinity must also include premises affirming the distinction of persons: the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

When you ignore the distinction of persons, you wind up with Modalism (i.e. Oneness), not Trinitarianism.

 

[T-Bone]

Simplicity is my friend, at least...

Jesus is fully God and fully human.
God the Father is God
God the Son is God
God the Holy Spirit is God
And these three are one!

I am Trinitarian!

Don't forget, however, that a comprehensive definition of the Trinity must also include premises affirming the distinction of persons: the Father is not the Son, the Son is not the Holy Spirit, and the Holy Spirit is not the Father.

When you ignore the distinction of persons, you wind up with Modalism (i.e. Oneness), not Trinitarianism.

You are right...I will make corrections...it is still to me simple truth!  Thanks

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

FSSL, thanks for the try.  You put a lot of extraneous fluff and puff in there.

"human person," "fully human" "Jesus was personal as a man"

The ONLY issue of the three is human person, orthodox Trinitarianism has all sorts of way to say that Jesus is "as a man" or "man" or "fully human" or "put on humanity".

Doesn't "as a man" show you the problem? As I pointed out above, they really can not even say that Jesus is a man (although some may fudge that one, concerned about being too far from scripture) but they can say he is "as a man" .. ie. "like a man".

So far I've given you four representations of this orthodox Trinitarian belief, the key can be seen in Berkhof, who does not mince words:

"Christ has a human nature,  but He is not a human person "

FSSL says Berkhof is wrong. There is no way around that. FSSL says Jesus Christ is a human person, Berkhof says no. 

The remaining issue is whether this is a fundamental part of orthodox Trinitarianism, or simply an extraneous doo-dad interpretation.  (My understanding of the FSSL view is now clear, he is a Nestorian heretic, saying that Jesus is both a human person and a divine person.)

So I will cull out the bulk of your post and see what is left, when I have a little time. I would have preferred if you did not include a ton of extraneous puff, because I am fairly sure you actually do know the issue, but are trying to mask it for show.

Nonetheless, thanks for the quotes.  I actually think you have been fairly responsive and sincere in this discussion, so I am wondering what happened to the Olde FSSL?

Oh, an interesting point from Berkhof:

"The only passage speaking of tri-unity is I John 5:7"

Do you agree?

(You two agree on denying authenticity. Pieper is much better in that regard.)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Actually, I am an economic Trinitarian

That would definitely put you outside of the "three distinct eternal consciousnesses" riff .

Often Karl Barth is considered as the quintessential economic Trinitarian, as in the description in this paper:

What Is the Difference Between the Ontological Trinity and the Economic Trinity?
Ernest W. Durbin II
http://www.durbin.com/ernie/Theology_files/What%2520Is%2520the%2520Difference%2520Between%2520the%2520Ontological%2520Trinity%2520and%2520the%2520Economic%2520Trinity.pdf

The economic Trinity infers the threefold self-manifestation of God as creator Father, redeemer Son, and sustainer Holy Spirit, relative to man. Karl Barth follows this functional line, replacing “economic Trinity,” with his preferred nomenclature “modes of
God’s being.” Barth understands these “modes of God’s being” (creator, reconciler, or
redeemer) as occurring within the context of God’s revelation.

Would you say that is in the ballpark? Any objections?

Personally, I am not a fan of the word "modes" but the quote was right to point.

============

When I read a oneness speaker like David Bernard, I find he trips himself up over phrases like Jesus being his own father, with a fluctuating stance. A lot of the extraneous explanations have become somewhat disinteresting to me, as I do not think we have to add Christological constructs beyond the scriptures, I feel they, in the pure Bible, are fully adequate. The oneness speaker who I did like was the Robert Sabin of 1990-1995. Generally, I found him consistent and clear. 

Note, in the pure Bible. I believe a major part of the problem today is the lack of identity of the scripture, so e.g. the following statements:

"God was manifest in the flesh"
"the only-begotten God"
"and these three are one"

may or may not be in your Bible, depending on which version you pick out of the pile. And this is leading to verse cherry-picking to match doctrine, a reverse type of approach. 

The pure Bible should form and inform doctrine, we should not try to mold the Bible to match our doctrine.

So I believe once you know the pure Bible, the scriptures themselves are rich and majestic enough to make most or all additional Christological explanations superfluous.  Many of the oneness folks struggle on this point, they can not rest on the scriptures, because, like the standard modern versionists, they simply do not know what the scriptures say.

============

Note: anytime someone can give an improved scripture-based explanation of Christology, I am all ears, whether they call themselves Trinitarian or Oneness or something else.  However, without the pure Bible, the situation is close to hopeless, you can see that e.g. in the CARM discussions where most of the discussions degenerate to what version translation, Greek theory like the Granville Sharp disaster, and 99% of it is diversion or junque.

============

Keep in mind that one of the knocks on the "Oneness" folks is that actually there are a number of different and diverse doctrines represented.  Maybe not so many as with "Trinity" but if you check the CARM oneness section (rather a deficient section, but still you can pick up a bit) you will see the situation. 

============

My major modification? Throw out 99% of the explanations, and simply stick with the scripture. 

There are specific situations, like with Bernard above, where I chaff at Oneness explanations. 

And I remember discussing this with a fine brother in ministry (oneness church) and he told me how some of the visiting preachers would almost lose the identity of the Son of God (this is a paraphrase, it was a couple of years back).  ie. The humanity of Jesus would be lost in the shuffle.

The "heavenly flesh" or "divine flesh" doctrine of Teklemarian Gezahagne took this a step further by denying the Marian physical - egg - DNA - contribution to Jesus, instead going for a surrogate mother or divine implant origin.  It turns out that that doctrine has a certain acceptance in both Trinitarian and Oneness circles.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

FSSL: Actually, I am an economic Trinitarian

Avery: That would definitely put you outside of the "three distinct eternal consciousnesses" riff .

FSSL: No. In fact that is what it is based on. I wonder if some of your problem, Steven, is that you have such a oneness theology mindset, that you read your own oneness ideas into the writings of other people and your internet discussions.

• You got Berkhof and Lane 100% completely wrong.
• You say that you could be considered a Trinitarian if there is a recognition of distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. While denying that they are Persons. It only works that way in the Oneness world.
• Now you do not understand what "economic Trinitarian" means.

As long as you deny the Persons of the Trinity, none of this will fall into place for you. Hence my earlier thought that this would be frustrating to continue.

Steven... you have totally ignored my highlighting the "human persons" among the theologies and various commentaries. Why is that?

 

[christundivided]

Avery's praise of Robert Sabin pretty much settles it.....

He pretty much believes in a single god who enjoys talking to himself. Oh yeah.... you really need to emphasis his "humanity"..... even to the point that you no longer need to follow Jesus's own word in Matthew 28....

 

[FSSL]

Avery's praise of Robert Sabin pretty much settles it.....

For those who are following this and do not know what a oneness pentecostal is... here is their creed:

"The Oneness Pentecostals stress that God is absolutely one (Isa 44:6, 8, 24)—that is, one without distinction of persons. There are no distinctions in God’s eternal being, and the Godhead does not consist of three centers of consciousness (as some Trinitarians hold). Moreover, in Jesus dwells all the fullness of the Godhead bodily (Col 2:9)." (Oneness Pentecostal Confession. 9,34. 2007)

 

[FSSL]

Note, in the pure Bible. I believe a major part of the problem today is the lack of identity of the scripture, so e.g. the following statements:

"God was manifest in the flesh"
"the only-begotten God"
"and these three are one"

may or may not be in your Bible, depending on which version you pick out of the pile. And this is leading to verse cherry-picking to match doctrine, a reverse type of approach. 

The pure Bible should form and inform doctrine, we should not try to mold the Bible to match our doctrine.

So I believe once you know the pure Bible, the scriptures themselves are rich and majestic enough to make most or all additional Christological explanations superfluous.  Many of the oneness folks struggle on this point, they can not rest on the scriptures, because, like the standard modern versionists, they simply do not know what the scriptures say.

Okay.... this would be a great discussion... ONLY using the Bible. Are you up to that?

 

[Ransom]

So here we are, converging on 250 posts.

PappaBear has backpedaled out of the topic of this thread, which is proving the Trinity from the NIV.

Avery is more interested in accusing Christians of unorthodoxy, based on his unorthodox reading of orthodox theologians, so his hijack of this thread isn't worth the effort.

Are there any other KJV-onlyists that would like to argue that the orthodox Trinity cannot be proven from the NIV? Feel entirely free to step up.

I will just remind you that I have two questions to begin the discussion:

[list type=decimal]
[*]Please provide your definition of the Trinity that constitutes "the orthodox view." I could provide my own; 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]

I can assure you, these are not trick questions. They simply set the boundaries of the debate. The first establishes what it is that I am arguing in favour of; the second, when I have done so successfully.