Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You got Berkhof and Lane 100% completely wrong.

No, I got them 100% right.  You tried a lot of moving of the goal posts, but to no avail. You pretended I was making some other argument and spent a lot of time on irrelevancies.

It is determined now that you disagree with Berkhof and Craig, and your disagreement is specifically on your taking the Nestorian position of Jesus being both a divine person and a human person.  It is not semantics, or difficulties of definition, as you would like to pretend, you simply took the heretical position.  While I don't blame you, it was helpful that you did it so clearly.

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.

Wrong.  Take Karl Barth as an example, he clearly says no to the persons idea, and yet is considered an economic Trinitarian.  Of course you could take the "no true Scotsman" approach in reply.

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

The only one that looked fairly clearly heretical was Dabney, contra Trinitarian orthodoxy, but that was no surprise.  It seems to have just been missed, as Dabney is rarely commented on by anybody today.  The second one was buried in the discussion of the meaning of  σάρξ (sarx) - it was not saying that Jesus is a human person - and would take a while to unpack what was being said. 

I'll go back to it now, to see if there is a third, and whether the sarx argument can be unpacked to direct relevancy.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

> three distinct, eternal consciousnesses,

That would be the classical definition.

Could you be more specific?

Ante-Nicene writers? Nicea? Reformation Christians like Calvin and Luther?  Creedal Christians like the Athanasian Creed and Chalcedon?  ECW?  Modern theoreticians?  Social Trinitarians?

In my experience the only classical view that matches somewhat is Social Trinitarian, arguably, possibly, some aspects of the Cappodocian writers (however, see the article below).  And modern American radio personalities.

However if you can show this with a wider perspective (e.g. Nicea, Augustine, Calvin, Berkhof) with any quotes that match up fairly well, it would be appreciated.  Very much.  btw, there is a book "Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective" that is sympathetic to the Social Trinitarian perspective.

Here is an article that touches on the question.

Historical Perspectives on Trinitarian Doctrine (1995)
Phillip Cary
http://www.academia.edu/185280/Historical_Perspectives_on_Trinitarian_Doctrine

Hence God is not  three persons in the modern sense of the word—for three distinct divine persons, with three distinct minds, wills and centers of consciousness, would surely be three Gods (just as the Cappadocians said) ...

Despite the significant shifts in meaning of the word "person" over the past two millennia, well-informed Latin trinitarianism has always been aware that "three persons" does not mean three minds or wills or centers of consciousness. ....

... the trinitarian implication is not that there are three minds or rationalities in the Trinity but rather only one "rational nature"—just as there is only one Wisdom, Power, Will, and so on

... Genuinely social doctrines, in which the Trinity is conceived of on the model of a society of three human persons, are a recent Western phenomenon, dependent on the
modern notion of "person." To ascribe a "social" Trinity to the Greek Fathers is to read modern Western preoccupations into ancient Eastern theology

Hopefully, you can see why I contrast your classical definition claim with what looks to be a fairly well informed exposition on the question.

As a helpful example, Roger E. Olsen writes of Tertullian:

The Trinity
The Historical Development of the Doctrine of the Trinity
1. The Trinity: Patristic Contributions
Roger E. Olsen
http://books.google.com/books?id=SUAidAp8AgEC&pg=PA36

... we are apt to apply anachronistically a current understanding of "person" to Tertullian's model, one that might lead us to think of Father, Son, and Spirit as possessing a separate self-consciousness or as existing as autonomous individuals. Personal distinctions within the Trinity do not mean separateness or autonomy. In fact, Tertullian describes the Son or second person of the Trinity as the Reason or Ratio of the Father, first existing in the mind of the Father and then expressed as his sermo or "speech.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

> 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.... You aren't making any sense.

And I tend to agree with you, it is absurd.  And there is a sense problem.

However, it is orthodox Trinitarian doctrine. One alternative is to take the Nestorian heretical view of FSSL and say "sink the torpedoes, full steam ahead" .. Jesus is a human person after all.

No need to shoot the messenger.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[christundivided]

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?

Even stick to the KJV. Its ironic that he is KJVO given his beliefs. Generally, the KJVOist will say that Colossians 2:9 in modern version, corrupts the doctrine of the Trinity.

He's not going to take you up on it because he purposely tries to hide his Oneness beliefs. He has always done it. He'll continue to do it. He simply attacks a traditional view of the Trinity. He then refuses to deal in details of his own belief. This is the most I've ever seen him divulge before. Its pretty clear that he doesn't really want to tell you what he fully believes. He is afraid his KJVOist relationships will end. To some degree they have. There are just a few left that will even give him "the time of day."

I found this on the old forum from Avery...

My background surely does includes 'oneness Pentecostal' (and Messianics who would be considered Trinitarian and more) and I generally accept and agree with the oneness view which emphasizes strongly the full Deity of the Lord Jesus Christ. While the super-overt Trinity understanding of the RCC and the convoluted Athanasian Creed appears to lead to even prayer and worship to three distinct eternal beings, with three eternal consciousnesses, in contradiction to the basic teaching that God is one ... a type of confusion about the Lord Jesus Christ that is not of God. However those people that I am close with who are Trinitarian do not walk that walk.

 

[christundivided]

I've never seen Avery just discuss the Bible, either.

Agreed.

I still bet that he believes in baptism in Jesus name alone. I can't see why he wouldn't simply answer this one simple question. Should believers be baptized in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost or just The Name of Jesus.

I have no problems saying unequivocally, I believe in baptism in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost" (KJV term to be agreeable).

 

[rsc2a]

Hi,

> three distinct, eternal consciousnesses,

That would be the classical definition.

Could you be more specific?

"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."

 

[FSSL]

I have no problems saying unequivocally, I believe in baptism in the name of The Father, The Son and The Holy Ghost" (KJV term to be agreeable).

Right on...

When Steven says, "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."

He is hiding his belief system while trying to claim that he only uses the language of Scripture. EVENTHOUGH he has not in this discussion.

For example, the KJV, no matter what edition you use, NEVER uses the phrase "human person." For that matter, I know of no Bible that does either. Steven demands that language be used IN SPITE of it not appearing in the KJV.

Also, I demonstrated on this post the Bible's teaching on the subject. Avery ignores and simply calls me a Nestorian EVEN while I give Scripture AND I have located the Person of Christ in the Godhead (which he rejects). I wholly reject the two person heresy. He knows this. The Averyisms are wholly obfuscation. Meanwhile, he denies the person of Christ in the Godhead and calls Jesus a human person.

Steven, I have been honestly seeking to not misspeak about your own beliefs, which you continue to hide. Why do you continue to distort mine own?

This is all just a ruse. I am not convinced that Avery is up to the challenge that Ransom placed before the KJVOs. In fact, I would be surprised to see any KJVOs jump in and defend the Trinity. I have seen it happen once on the .com.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

For example, the KJV, no matter what edition you use, NEVER uses the phrase "human person."

Orthodox trinitarianism does use the phrase, in a negative way, insisting that it can not apply to Jesus Christ, although it can apply to every other human being.

Orthodox trinitarianism also says that those who affirm Jesus as a human person and a divine person, like FSSL, are Nestorian heretics. There is a logical disconnect in his denial above, since FSSL has specifically acknowledged Jesus as a human person. 

Does FSSL locate this human person of Christ in the Trinity, and still think of himself as an orthodox Trinitarian?  If he does, then his heresy might be a bit different than Nestorian (and if so, I will gladly modify my words above, and will take the study time to do proper identification) ... first, let us see if that is what he does.

FSSL, do you place the human person of Jesus Christ in the Trinity?

FSSL uses the word Godhead here, however that is a misplaced usage of the word.  Will Kinney has some good writing on the word Godhead, and this also touches on the Colossians 2:9 question, for those who think the verse might say that the fulness of the Trinity is in Jesus Christ bodily. 

God and History (2005)
Laurence W. Wood
http://books.google.com/books?id=Foft_M18zIQC&pg=PA37
In the Chalcedonian Creed, the fullness of human nature and divine nature exist in the person of Jesus. However, if there is only a divine person in whom the two natures exist, in what sense can it really be said that Jesus is also human? According to the basic Aristotelian premise that the Chalcedonian Creed assumed, Jesus is only one person, and it is clear that the person is a divine person, not a human person. 

(On human persons, the closest I have found to a dance around the orthodox Trinitarian problem is William Greenough Thayer Shedd, 1820-1894, on the theantropic nature of Christ.  Overall, I don't really see it as succeeding, however it was an interesting read, as was a review by Oliver D. Crisp, or what was available in google of the Crisp review.)

Note: all this orthodox trinitarian convolution does not bother me either way, since I am not an orthodox trinitarian.  However, I bring it forth in the classical ad hominem discussion approach ("to the man" .. not the modern popular "against the man").

Thus ... if you claim to be orthodox trinitarian, from your perspective, what do you do with A, B, C?

If you are not claiming to be orthodox trinitarian, especially if you see that construct as faulty, and say so, then the "human person" discussion is not of any great relevance.

==========

And even if you do tackle the human persons problem, seeing its relevance, the question of:

three distinct eternal consciousnesses

is clearly far more Christologically significant.  I notice a great reluctance to tackle that one, or even to give a yes, no, dunno type of response.  For the James White recently expressed view, you would go to his debate with Roger Perkins.

e.g. FSSL said he was an economic trinitarian. As I understand it, that would definitely make him in the more comfortable camp of not having to defend 3dec.  Yet then, he hedges the other way, I think keeping his options open on the 3dec.  However, there is no way that a 3dec affirmation is economic trinitarianism. 

Basically, I see that 3dec formulation as the key question of trinitarianism, and if you studied Christology history some, you would understand.  You can even go back to around 1700 and look at Robert South tussling with William Sherlock, one major issue being whether that type of three consciousness belief veers towards tritheism. 

In this thread, I occasionally try to give helpful quotes for those, like myself, who consider themselves as Christology learners and students rather than accusers.  Quotes given especially when I was told that the 3dec is the classical trinitarianism, which I find ultra-dubious historically.

==========

btw, I find the idea that I am hiding some great doctrinal insight or understanding or belief rather humorous. Overall,  I am a lot less doctrinaire on Christology than I was 15 years back, and have attended Messianic fellowships more than Pentecostal in that period. The other day I went to one where they even gave the unsound echad, compound unity, argument in a particularly unsound manner. (Granted, I found that a bit off-putting.)

In fact, often the Christology issues are brought up very insincerely, only as a point of attack against the AV, or only as a point of attack against a perceived Christological heresy.  Where there is actual discussion, iron sharpeneth as there is sometimes at CARM, and there used to be at Good News Cafe, and possibly on these threads, for some, I am far more active and involved and interested than just about ... anybody.

And I have no particular concern about the reaction of other AV defenders, other than to share the word of God excellently.  We always have the wonderful beginning point of recognizing God's word.

Thank you Lord Jesus for the recognition of your inspired and preserved word, the plumbline of faith and doctrine.

2 Timothy 3:16 
All scripture is given by inspiration of God,
and is profitable for doctrine,
for reproof, for correction,
for instruction in righteousness:

And I have found that most AV defenders have been more concerned about other doctrinal issues than the use of "Trinity" or "persons" to describe beliefs (again, read John Wesley).  And those few that have made that their central concern have had their say.

Others are concerned more simply on the high Christology of Jesus Christ, God manifest in the flesh, as denied generally by unitarians, ebionites, adoptionists, arians, JW, etc. (The Ehrman textual system is based on the early 1st-century church being ebionite or adoptionist).

AV defenders tend to have friendly, though sometimes sharp, internal battles more on Calvinism-Arminian issues, eschatology or OSAS, or the place of water baptism, than on the difficulties and convolutions of the Athanasian Creed and the constructs of Chalcedon.

And I found those creeds affirmed today far more by those with no tangible, pure Bible. As a type of hoped-for crutch around the version confusions and contradictions.

Psalm 119:140
Thy word is very pure:
therefore thy servant loveth it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

I have never witnessed anyone work SO HARD to try to rework his opponent's theology in my life. You are not being honest in this discussion. The rest of us know that Berkhof and Lane means. The rest of us have seen how you try to portray him differently by snipping his quotes.

You are no Trinitarian even when you try to say you are by masking your oneness in "if" statements.

I'm not going to repeat myself running around in circles here. Call me a "heretic" if you so desire. In fact, please, call me one! I would like to put a notch on my theological gun stock by having a oneness advocate call me a heretic!

Ransom... It appears that no KJVO is able or willing to take up the task of defending the Trinity from Scripture alone!

 

[Ransom]

Orthodox trinitarianism does use the phrase, in a negative way, insisting that it can not apply to Jesus Christ, although it can apply to every other human being.

No, Avery, one or two orthodox Trinitarians used that phrase, and in a manner that you obviously did not understand.

Berkhof and Lane Craig are not the Emperors of Trinitarians, despite your desperate insistence that they are the last word on the subject.

Orthodox trinitarianism also says that those who affirm Jesus as a human person and a divine person, like FSSL, are Nestorian heretics.

Obviously, Avery, you wouldn't recognize a Nestorian if he bit you on the rear.

[remaining windbaggery deleted; some people just love the sound of their own voices]

 

[Ransom]

Ransom... It appears that no KJVO is able or willing to take up the task of defending the Trinity from Scripture alone!

Guess not!  The self-appointed Defenders of Thuh Faith turn out to be theological and mental featherweights.

 

[FSSL]

I see where he declares himself to be a Trinitarian twice in one post, just not the kind you approve of, apostate Calvi-baal worshipper.

Like this example, Ransom? Where PappaBear sees the word "Trinitarian" in Steven's post and says, "He is just not the kind you approve of..." Bwahahahha

PappaBear is not willing to tell us what he believes... but it is showing!

 

[rsc2a]

I see where he declares himself to be a Trinitarian twice in one post, just not the kind you approve of, apostate Calvi-baal worshipper.

Like this example, Ransom? Where PappaBear sees the word "Trinitarian" in Steven's post and says, "He is just not the kind you approve of..." Bwahahahha

PappaBear is not willing to tell us what he believes... but it is showing!

Something is seriously screwed up when the Triune Godhead isn't an essential but KJVo-ism is.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

know that Berkhof and Lane means.

They mean what they say, which is crystal clear, Jesus is not a human person. You might not like the doctrine, but it is orthodox Trintiarianism, and that is why they say it.

And you have not really contested the issue, other than try to blame it on context, or one poster tried to blame the Trinitarian messengers, Berkhof and Craig. To help you out, I've included other writers who make the same point, which is easy to do, since it permeates orthodox Trinitarianism.

However, the consciousness issue is more fundamental, which is why I gave you the Philip Cary and Roger E. Olsen quotes the other day.

You are no Trinitarian even when you try to say you are

And I do not try to say I am a Trinitarian, what I say is that there are many definitions called Trinitarian, and some of the economic Trinitarian beliefs are very close to mine (far closer than they are to the Social Trinity belief.) And thus, if some one wants to call me an economic Trinitarian (as some unitarians and ebionites do) I have no objection, it is just a label of little substance.
 
And I don't call you a heretic, I say that you are a heretic from the point of view of orthodox Trinitarianism, since you say that Jesus is a human person.

Until you answer the questions about three eternal consciousnesses, all I really know of your belief is that you consider yourself an economic Trinitarian, which is often associated with the views of Karl Barth.  At that point, you fell silent.  It is possible that any differences we have are mostly semantic, I find that is often the case with professed Trinitarians. 

However, I really have no idea until you say whether you believe the Trinity is three distinct, eternal consciousnesses. (Which is not economic trinitarianism, it is the ultimate in ontological, immanent trinitarianism.) And that belief, which can overlap with "Social Trinity" constructs veers hard right towards tritheism.  A point which is often pointed out by solid writers.  I sense that you hesitate to get trapped in that James White (recent) error, and such hesitation is duly respected.

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

btw, the Wesleyan writers at times seem to be more non-orthodox, and you might use them as your exemplar.

Wesleyan theological journal 36 (2001) 218-230;
Una Natura Divina, Tres Nescio Quid: What sorts of "personae" are divine "personae"? 
Michael E. Lodahl
http://wesley.nnu.edu/fileadmin/imported_site/wesleyjournal/2001-wtj-36-1.pdf

It is obvious, not to mention demanded by ecumenical creed, that Jesus of Nazareth was a human being who spoke and acted, who had desires and made decisions. Further, the heart of the Christian faith is that this same Jesus "was raised from the dead through the glory of the Father" (Rom. 6:4). such that he continues to be a self-aware subject. Again, then. I submit that Jesus is a person in our usual sense of the term, albeit now with all the qualifications that must be guessed at when attempting to speculate about what a resurrected person might be like. ... There is. then, an identifiable subjective continuity between the earthly human person, Jesus of Nazareth, and the resurrected Jesus; simply put, Jesus was and is a person....

if we have already established that Jesus, as a truly human person, is not the same sort of persona as God the Father is, then we should have relatively little difficulty in accepting the possibility that the Spirit is yet another sort of persona....

It is bad enough that often the Christian in the pew thinks of the personae of the Trinity as "persons" in the modern, conventional sense (as three people) but it is worse when ecclesiastical and theological leaders attribute a modern psychological term like "personality" to the Spirit, or for that mailer to any of the tres personae of the Trinity.

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

If you want an AV defender to do a Trinity defense, they could simply take the Louis Berkhof position.

"The only passage speaking of tri-unity is I John 5:7 (Auth. Ver.), but this is of doubtful genuineness, and is therefore eliminated from the latest critical editions of the New Testament." - Systematic Theology, by Louis Berkhof, 1996 p. 86

And they could point out that the non-genuineness is your position, not theirs. 

Convoluted pseudo-syllogisms do not a Bible doctrine make, they tend to show what happens when special pleading trumps logic and sense.

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

btw, you offered Dabney earlier as a Trinitarian writer who was not concerned with Jesus being a human person.  Here he is asserting that the very obscurity, or inexplicability, makes the Trinity doctrine impossible to be logically refuted.

Syllabus and notes of the course of systematic and polemic theology (1878)
Robert Lewis Dabney (1820-1898)
http://www.archive.org/download/http://archive.org/details/syllabusnotesofc00dabn
http://www.pbministries.org/R.%20L.%20Dabney/Systematic%20Theology/chapter13.htm

I pray the student to bear in mind, that I am not here attempting to explain the Trinity, but just the contrary: I am endeavoring to convince him that it cannot be explained. (And because it cannot be explained, it cannot be rationally refuted). I would show him that we must reasonably expect to find the doctrine inexplicable, and to leave it so" ( p. 179).

And I see that as a good description of the state of the argumentation from FSSL and Scott.  There is more there from Dabney that is interesting.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[christundivided]

Until you answer the questions about three eternal consciousnesses, all I really know of your belief is that you consider yourself an economic Trinitarian, which is often associated with the views of Karl Barth.  At that point, you fell silent.  It is possible that any differences we have are mostly semantic, I find that is often the case with professed Trinitarians. 

Isn't ironic that Avery demands you detail what everyone else believes concerning the eternal consciousness of God.....and HE REFUSES to detail such himself.

By the way Avery.... I started a Trinity thread in the Fighting Forum. By all means, detail your belief in vivid detail.

 

[FSSL]

Steven, your position is not simply a semantic difference from mine. If it was, your position would have already been given.

As I already made clear, a discussion on the outworking of the economic Trinity with someone who DENIES the Persons of the Godhead would simply be frustrating. It would be akin to discussing stealing bases in baseball with someone who doesn't accept the fact that there are bases on a ball diamond.

Why do you work so hard to be obscurant of your own beliefs?

 

[Steven Avery]

As I already made clear, a discussion on the outworking of the economic Trinity with someone who DENIES the Persons of the Godhead would simply be frustrating.

So you would not discuss economic trinity in reference to Karl Barth, despite the fact that he is just about the foremost writer considered an economic trinitarian.

Tritheism and Christian Faith
Ralph Allen Smith
http://www.berith.org/essays/tritheism_and_christian_faith.html
http://www.berith.org/pdf/Tritheism_and_Christian_Faith.pdf

Karl Barth objected to the use of the word “person” in the doctrine of the Trinity, not because he objected to the traditional doctrine, but because he believed that after the Enlightenment the word “person” had taken on new and problematic connotations. As he saw it, for modern men the word “person” included the notion of autonomy. A person in the Enlightenment sense of the word is an independent self. Relationships with others are an accidental feature of personhood. It would be obviously wrong to speak of God as three autonomous, independent subjects. God is one absolute and autonomous “I am.”

To avoid tritheism, therefore, Barth believed the use of the word person should be set aside.  The notion of three selves in God, three independent centers of consciousness, seemed to him to imply three gods.

It would be nice to see you actual interact with the basic issues.

And I understand that the three distinct, eternal consciousness questions can be a tad difficult, even discomfiting, for those who consider themselves as trinitarians.  Some strongly say yes, some strongly say no, and yet the gulf between the two positions is far more than a mile wide.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

It would be nice to see you actual interact with the basic issues. And I understand that the three distinct, eternal consciousness questions can be a tad difficult, even discomfiting, for those who consider themselves as trinitarians.  Some strongly say yes, some strongly say no, and yet the gulf between the two positions is far more than a mile wide.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery[/color]

I can interact with the issues. The question has become, "What do you believe?" What kind of honest discussion would we really be able to have if one side is unwilling to be clear?

I can interact with Barth on his view of the Trinity and economy, ontology, etc. He was willing to pen his beliefs with clarity. I am unable to go further in my interaction with you because of your unwillingness to pen your beliefs with clarity.

Do you consider yourself a Barthian Economic Trinitarian? You said you were a "oneness with modifications," and you also said that you can call yourself a "Trinitarian" if If the essence of the "the Trinity" is the recognition of distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit. Which modalists would also say.


Are we going to get clarity on what you believe? Charity and honesty demand that I debate substance, not a fog.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I can interact with Barth on his view of the Trinity and economy, ontology, etc.

Well, by interacting with Barth we can find out if you are one of the "three distinct eternal consciousnesses" folks.  And why you are so intent on "persons", contra Barth.

I'm not particularly doctrinaire on Christology.  Economic trinitarianism and oneness often overlap.  Personally, I don't feel that you don't have to go beyond what the scriptures actually say, in the pure Bible text. The scriptures speak fine, you don't have to go through complex explanations beyond the scriptures.  Most of the concerns in the Oneness-Trinitarian battles barely phase me.

Thus, anyone who is a true "economic trinitarian" is interesting to me, and I can listen carefully, and find points of agreement, maybe some tweaking, maybe some disagreement.

Anyone who is a "social trinitarian" I believe is far, far from the Bible faith.  We may still have many points of fellowship in the Lord Jesus, however our basic conception of God is very different.  (Most of my friends who consider themselves as trinitarian do not have such a perspective.)

If you want to know my Christology beliefs, simply read 1 Timothy 3:16, Colossians 2:9, Philippians 2:6-7, Isaiah 9:6, Mark 12:29 reflecting Deuteronomy 6:4, Acts 20:28, Acts 7:59, John 1:18, Isaiah 7:14, Psalm 2 and Psalm 110, Colossians 1:19 and the heavenly witnesses in the pure Bible. 

There is one area where I think a little can be added outside the direct words of scripture.  That is the understanding that the sinlessness of Jesus is directly connected with the virgin birth, in the Arthur Custance type of exposition. (Matt Slick of CARM is an example of a popular writer today with this understanding.)

Virtually all Christology can be summarized in:

1 Timothy 3:16
And without controversy great is the mystery of godliness:
God was manifest in the flesh,
justified in the Spirit,
seen of angels,
preached unto the Gentiles,
believed on in the world,
received up into glory.

Which declares the full mystery.
And:

Colossians 2:8-9
Beware lest any man spoil you through philosophy and vain deceit,
after the tradition of men, after the rudiments of the world,
and not after Christ.
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

Which is the complementary declaration, and says that the declaration is to be without controversy.  And we can see a prescient warning against lots of Greek philosophy masking as Christian faith.

So why the controversy?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

I can interact with Barth on his view of the Trinity and economy, ontology, etc.

And conversely, no one can interact with you and your views of the Trinity, because you refuse to be clear about them.

You demand answers from everyone while refusing to reciprocate. That is why discussing anything with you in any depth is a pointless exercise in frustration.

Put up or shut up, Avery.