Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You demand answers from everyone

Not really. Mostly, I simply ask a trinitarian to tell me if they understand God as consisting of three distinct eternal consciousnesses. Fundamental, clear and simple.

And I might also ask them if they understand some of the difficulties seen in the word "persons".

Most of the rest is extraneous, or at most secondary.  Even the question of "not a human person" is simply designed as a classical ad hominem type of question, to encourage thinking and consistency. To point out that the "orthodox Trinitarian" belief has some tricks and traps that should at least be understood.

e.g. I wrote to Michael Lodahl, quoted above, to ask him whether he saw tension with his sensible explanation and classical Chalcedon trinitarianism.  His response was gracious and interesting and then we discuss it more, iron sharpeneth.

Your problem is that a lot of the Christological discussion has been politicized. Also there is a pablum level of understanding in modern American media doctrinal Christianity. Fertile ground for demagoguery.

And, due to my pure Bible position, I've been subject to incessant demands on the forums from conflicting politicos, which I take with a  .  This forum has been a little bit less tone deaf, so we can go into it a bit deeper. This happens sometimes on the CARM doctrinal forums as well, however they have a huge disaster problem in non pure Bible (conflicting versions, texts and languages right and left) confusion, warping in and out of texts and translations.

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

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

There is ample biblical evidence that the man Jesus was a fully human person, not lacking any of the essential elements of humanity that are found in each of us.

- Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 723, emphasis added.

My orthodox Trinitarian theologian trumps your orthodox Trinitarian theologian. Deal with it, Avery.

 

[Ransom]

Incidentally, Erickson appears to cite the NIV throughout his systematic theology - lending, I think, considerable credence to the topic of the thread, that an orthodox view of the Trinity can be expounded using the NIV.

 

[FSSL]

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.

I did not find "human person" in any of those verses.

Steven, you know, as well as we know, that your theology, as much as you want to say it is just plain Scripture, is meaningless. Your creed involves your interpretive phrasing. (Eg., "human person, oneness").

You can hide your theological bent from us and pretend that you only use only the language of Scripture. The fact is... you don't.

I am willing to move further ahead in this discussion. A fair, honest and charitable discussion can ONLY be had when the participants are clear.

 

[FSSL]

There is ample biblical evidence that the man Jesus was a fully human person, not lacking any of the essential elements of humanity that are found in each of us.

- Millard Erickson, Christian Theology, 2nd ed. (Grand Rapids: Baker, 1998), 723, emphasis added.

My orthodox Trinitarian theologian trumps your orthodox Trinitarian theologian. Deal with it, Avery.

Nice. Thank you Ransom. That was the SysTheo I used in seminary. I never replaced it with a digital copy since we have been on the road. It looks like I probably should. I have been waiting for the 3rd edition (in logos).

Just bought it. Goodness... I can't stop buying books lately!

Here is more from Erickson:

God is not totally transcendent. He is not so far removed from the human race. If he could actually live among us at one time as a real human person, it is not surprising that he can and does act within the human realm today as well.(738).

Another attempt to clarify the relationship between the two natures might be termed “anhypostatic Christology.” This view insists that the humanity of Jesus was impersonal and had no independent subsistence, that is, the divine Word was not united with an individual human person. Originally, anhypostatic Christology was intended to guard against the Nestorian division of Jesus into two persons and the related belief that Mary was mother of only the human person. (748).

 

[FSSL]

Another is the unity of the Person of the God-man, for which the ancient term was anhypostasia, or impersonality of the human nature, a later and better term is enhypostasia of the human person. Culver, R. D. (2005). Systematic Theology: Biblical and Historical (472). Ross-shire, UK: Mentor.

A SystTheology I purchased today.

 

[FSSL]

You can hide your theological bent from us and pretend that you only use only the language of Scripture. The fact is... you don't. I am willing to move further ahead in this discussion. A fair, honest and charitable discussion can ONLY be had when the participants are clear.

As noted about the Baptist Trinitarian, John Gill:

Gill interpreted modern anti-Trinitarianism as a revival of the “old stale error” of Sabellianism and Arianism. He was alarmed that “some who profess evangelical doctrines have embraced it, or are nibbling at it.”45 In defending classical Trinitarian orthodoxy, he was required, as Calvin before him had done, to move beyond the strict use of biblical language for the sake of biblical truth. An earlier meeting of the General Assembly of the General Baptists had decided that the controversy “respecting the Trinity and the Christ of God” should be voiced “in Scripture words and terms and in no other terms.”46 Gill saw this principle as unduly restrictive and intentionally deceptive. Rather than reflecting a true reverence for the biblical text, it frequently camouflaged doctrinal deviance. He contended that “words and phrases though not literally expressed in scripture, yet if what is meant by them is to be found there, they may be lawfully made use of.”47 While Gill, in good Baptist fashion, could acclaim the Bible only, and not confessions, catechisms, or articles of faith, as the proper standard of orthodoxy, he nonetheless showed remarkable respect for the doctrinal consensus of the early Fathers and was most reluctant “to oppose a doctrine the church of God has always held, and especially being what the Scriptures abundantly bear testimony unto.”48 In this sense he was a true catholic theologian.

Theologians of the Baptist Tradition. 2001 (T. George & D. S. Dockery, Ed.) (23–24). Nashville, TN: Broadman & Holman Publishers.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Incidentally, Erickson appears to cite the NIV throughout his systematic theology - lending, I think, considerable credence to the topic of the thread, that an orthodox view of the Trinity can be expounded using the NIV.

Millard Erickson would like to have the heavenly witnesses as scripture, he has fallen for the modern confusion of thinking the historic and pure scripture is not authentic:

Three-in-Oneness

On the surface, these two lines of evidence—God’s oneness and threeness—seem contradictory. .... we must pose the question whether this doctrine is explicitly taught in the Bible, is suggested by the Scripture, or is merely an inference drawn from other teachings of the Bible. (p. 353)

One text that has traditionally been appealed to as documenting the Trinity is 1 John 5:7, that is, as it is found in earlier versions such as the King James: “For there are three that bear record in heaven, the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.” Here is, apparently, a clear and succinct statement of the three-in-oneness. Unfortunately, however, the textual basis is so weak that some recent translations (e.g., NIV) include this statement only in an italicized footnote, and others omit it altogether (e.g., RSV). If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere.

....

Our conclusion from the data we have just examined: Although the doctrine of the Trinity is not expressly asserted, Scripture, particularly the New Testament, contains so many suggestions of the deity and unity of the three persons that we can understand why the church formulated the doctrine, and conclude that they were right in so doing. (p. 357)

Thus, Millard Erickson sees the Trinity doctrine as a suggestion in the New Testament. He does not claim anything like a clear proof or even an explicit teaching. 

Overall, Erickson is an interesting study, in terms of tension with Chalcedon, (one of his blurbs calls for a "new Chalcedon") and also for his social Trinity with full equality, without even any hint of procession.  Erickson even uses Siamese twins as a model, as does William Lane Craig (who adds Cerberus). 

And Erickson definitely fits the three consciousness mode - "The Trinity is a communion of three persons, three centers of consciousness".  It would be virtually impossible to peg him as an economic trinitarian.

So, if you are claiming comfort with the Millard Erickson social trinity view, we could examine and discuss it a bit.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Social, economic... whatever variety of  Trinitarianism you want to pick on Steven... your so called sine-qua-non of Trinitarianism has not stood up. We have provided multiple examples of Trinitarians using the phrase "human person." You gave us half-quotes and you fail to understand Berkhof and Lane. Your claim that I must not be a Trinitarian but a Nestorian for some other kind of heretic. I allow for the phrase "human person." Your inability to understand that shows your desperation and lack of primary sources.

Between Ransom and me, we have provided three systematic theologies produced in the 2000s by Trinitarians* which ALL use the phrase "human persons." Apparently they understood what Berkhof was saying.

This thread is just getting more frustratingly laborious. Let's start with with asking what makes Steven say he is a nonTrinitarian? What do you believe about the Trinity, Steven? You are the best interpreter of yourself. Surely, before you attempt to try to dismantle Trinitarians, it would be honest and charitable to tell us what you believe.





BTW: Steven also misrepresents Erickson on procession. But that is for a discussion "down-the-road" IF Steven gives us his theological bent. Perhaps it is the lack of sources again.

*also Calvinists

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Steven also misrepresents Erickson on procession.

Nonsense. Millard Erickson is quite clear that he rejects the traditional trinitarian ideas of procession, and that all procession is grab-bag pick-em, or simultaneous multiple processionism.

It has been common to speak of the Son proceeding from the Father, or being generated from the Father. The Spirit also has been understood to proceed from, or to derive his life from the Father. The Western church added the phrase and the thought, "and from the Son," which the Eastern church did not. On the model that we are expounding, however, each of the persons proceeds from or is generated by, each of the others. There is a mutual production of each of the persons by each of the others. - Making Sense of the Trinity: Three Crucial Questions, 2000, p. 62

Millard Erickson is a true disaster doctrinally, and a total reverse back-flip from the supposed economic trinitarianism of FSSL.  The literature from Michael L. Chiavone helps highlight the unscriptural nature of his social trinity position.  You can see that easily in his three separate consciousnesses position, veering towards tritheism.  Also the Siamese twins analogy (and the related Cerebrus analogy of Lane) shows you how convoluted and unscriptural are such conceptions.

Also Chiavone goes into the Warfieldian conception of the covenant of agreement. (Any of the Trinitarian members could have incarnated, and they had a covenant that helped decide such matters.)  You won't find most Trinitarian doctrinal writers going near this Warfieldian idea, however Chiavone mentions this errant idea as being in Erickson's God in Three Persons. Online you can find it on p. 121-123 in Who's Tampering with the Trinity.

You can learn a lot, especially about what to avoid, by studying such doctrinal writers.

Between Ransom and me, we have provided three systematic theologies produced in the 2000s by Trinitarians* which ALL use the phrase "human persons." Apparently they understood what Berkhof was saying.

Or, more simply, if they say that Jesus is a human person (each case to be examined), they are giving an unorthodox Trinitarian position, one that a doctrinaire orthodox Trinitarian would simply say is heretical.

Their reasoning (the ones supporting human person) may be superior to orthodox Trinitarian reasoning (as in the Michael Lodahl commentary I similarly offered). However, that does not make them orthodox. Or non-heretical, per the orthodox teaching.

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

btw, I have stated clearly that I consider the very word trinity to be confusing and unhelpful (by contrast, writers like the convoluted Warfield and the sincere Wesley simply say it is not Biblical).  The term is used to mask virtually opposite doctrines, like Millard Erickson contra Karl Barth, or J. Scott Horrell or William Craig Lane contra Karl Rahmer or Michael Chiavone. 

Big tent is an understatement.  There is a whole Christology universe hidden under one term, often used for politics today.

Many use the term Trinity as a mask to avoid any clear position at all. Others, like James White, may take a changing Christological position of convenience.

The very use of the term is fraught with peril.  What should be described instead is what is believed about the nature of God and the Lord Jesus Christ.  And that is best left very close to scripture.

That is why I ask the simple question about "three distinct, eternal consciousnesses" (not remotely in scripture). It tells you 1000x more than any usage of the word "Trinity" or "Tri-Unity".

Any real economic trinitarian position can overlap a oneness position, both are opposed to an Arian "begotten god" conception. And the main question then is high Christology or low (unitarians, all ebionites, adoptionists).  Sabellian and modalist are terms fraught with their own difficulties, and Socianian is a bit out-of-use and hard to peg.

Michael Servetus was burned at the stake, one great offense was his analogy of the Trinity to the Cerebrus of mythology.  Today, that analogy is given and defended by William Lane Craig. Ironies abound, and we should learn by the stumblings of others.

Calvin, the hand moving along the Servetus execution, had himself been brought up on charges of not being an acceptable Trinitarian, including being an Arian, by Pierre Caroli.  The charges included the specific issues of a creed (1536 Geneva Confession), developed by Farel and Calvin, missing those special words, in Latin, for Trinity and persons.  And especially for not accepting the Athanasian Creed (which was derisively laughed at by the Calvin party when spoken by Caroli). And even later, when he himself was the Trinitarian defender and persecutor, he avoided the creed.  Again, ironies abound.

One main opposition to economic trinitarian is social trinitarian, which is virtually an opposite doctrine (although some try to synthesize the two, almost in a dialectical fashion).  My view, shared by many, including many who consider themselves trinitarian, is that social trinitarian doctrines are totally non-scriptural, and tend to tritheism. YMMV.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

Now is the time at the FFF when we juxtapose . . .

Millard Erickson would like to have the heavenly witnesses as scripture,

and

Unfortunately, however, the textual basis is so weak that some recent translations (e.g., NIV) include this statement only in an italicized footnote, and others omit it altogether (e.g., RSV). If there is a biblical basis for the Trinity, it must be sought elsewhere.

Avery says Erickson wished he could use the Comma. Erickson says there's not enough evidence to accept it as Scripture.

Yet again, where reality and Averyism meet, we find that reality trumps Averyism, every time.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Erickson says there's not enough evidence to accept it as Scripture.

That is simply because he is brainwashed by modern textual cornfusions, post-Griesbach, post-Hort.

Should you accept what a modern scientist says about evolution, simply because he is a "scientist"?  Or will his directed studies make him more vulnerable to indoctrination, infusing him with confusion.

The tentacles of the version and translation and pseudo-scholarship industrial complex have taken its toll on the poor befuddled seminarian, whether he is writing a systematic theology tome, or teaching sunday school lessons.

If you must have a modern systemic theology type of writer as your guide, and you are studying the heavenly witnesses, then take the Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper. Although his position could have been stronger, he properly saw authenticity, with the powerful Cyprian usage as the fulcrum.  For full reality, you multiply that manyfold.

You may or may not end up using the heavenly witnesses for your particular Christological doctrine exposition, but you will have the pure Bible, and the Bible should be forming and informing doctrine. You will no longer be parsnipping version texts to go with your doctrine.

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

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

That is simply because he is brainwashed by modern textual cornfusions, post-Griesbach, post-Hort.

See what I mean in the other thread? It is inconceivable that Avery could possibly ever be wrong. Indeed, if you disagree with Avery, then there must be something wrong with you.

Shut up, Avery. Erickson is right. So is Berkhof, if he is understood properly. You have proven that you do not understand him properly. Get over yourself, ego boy.

If you must have a modern systemic theology type of writer as your guide, and you are studying the heavenly witnesses, then take the Lutheran scholar Franz August Otto Pieper.

No thank you. Erickson is just fine.

Yours in Jesus,

How can we know you are "in Jesus," Avery? You can't even articulate to us what you believe about Jesus. You are indistinguishable from a heretic.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You say Trinitarian is confusing politics YET you happily put a "non" in front of it to describe yourself.

When the issue is "orthodox Trinitarian" doctrine.  Which does have a definition, and for which even you do not qualify.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Ransom]

When the issue is "orthodox Trinitarian" doctrine.  Which does have a definition, and for which even you do not qualify.

Stevie, whether or not Jesus is a "human person" isn't even part of Trinitarian doctrine.  The hypostatic union is a question of Christology. The Trinity existed before the Incarnation.

You can't even get that right while insisting that we're all wrong!

LOL @ Stevie, the incompetent.

 

[The Rogue Tomato]

Bingo! Steven absurdly defines it as a sine-qua-non... it would be interesting to know what he fully believes.

Steven, it is neither charitable nor honest to deny my position when you hide yours.

Steven what is your nonTrinitarian belief? Do you include Jesus in the Godhead? Or, is Jesus just a human person?

Better yet, do you agree with Sabin that is this an accurate explanation of your belief?

"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)

"Oneness" almost sounds like the Trinity minus the Holy Spirit. 

Whatever, I'm glad we don't have to pass a theology test to be saved. 

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Stevie, whether or not Jesus is a "human person" isn't even part of Trinitarian doctrine. 

You are simply wrong in this assertion. Orthodox trinitarian Christianity circled the horses around a claim that "Jesus Christ is a human person" is a heresy.

Granted, this did not happen till hundreds of years after the New Testament was written. 

Even Michael Lodahl reviewed the sources I gave, checked with a colleague with a solid doctrinal background and concurred with the sources.  That is an example of an edifying discussion, without politics being the purpose and norm.

I've notice that modern versionites, without any actual clear Bible verses to call upon, tend to be extremely political.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

You are simply wrong in this assertion. Orthodox trinitarian Christianity circled the horses around a claim that "Jesus Christ is a human person" is a heresy.

It is quite remarkable that EVEN when Steven...
1) Snipped the quotes of Berkhof and Lane...
2) Says he cannot see the phrase "human person" in a number of Trinitarian theologians, lexicons and commentators...
3) AND where the BIBLE teaches that Jesus had real human person traits.

Steven why do you continue to tell us what Trinitarians supposedly believe? It is very simple...

This is not FSSL or Ransom pitting their opinions against Steven. Let the quotes, in their context, speak for themselves. Don't attempt to strip away explanatory language or charge us with adding too much language. It is right there for you to see. Just let the words speak for themselves.

I bolded and highlighted in red the phrase "human person," in the multiple sources. So, there are no politics involved. There is nothing on my side of the argument that is attempting to interpret or dismiss a particular quote. Just read the words and recognize that the phrase "human person" can be and is used by Trinitarians without a shred of heresy.

Steven, since you raised the "politics" banner once again, please tell us what you believe. Telling us what we are supposed to believe and how we are to communicate it is rude when you are hiding your own beliefs.

 

[Ransom]

You are simply wrong in this assertion.

No, I'm not.

Given that I am an orthodox Trinitarian and you are not, kindly refrain from trying to tell me what I believe. I am in a better position to know.

Orthodox trinitarian Christianity circled the horses around a claim that "Jesus Christ is a human person" is a heresy.

No, it didn't.

One heretic (i.e. you), quote-mining one commentary (i.e. Berkhof), does not establish a doctrine.

I've notice that modern versionites, without any actual clear Bible verses to call upon, tend to be extremely political.

I've noticed that anti-Trinitarian heretics, wanting to ingratiate themselves with orthodox Christians, tend to be weaselly when it comes to clearly explaining what they actually believe.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Steven why do you continue to tell us what Trinitarians supposedly believe? It is very simple...

And I told you what orthodox Trinitarianism believes, on the "human person" topic. There are many Trinitarian beliefs that are not orthodox, and the orthodox can consider them heretical, or, if in a beneficent mood, aberrant.

The quotes from Berkhof and Lane were 100% clear, the additional parts that are your focus for diversion simply tried to explain why they have the strange doctrine that Jesus can not be a human person.

And the sources on this are many-fold, maybe you need a five and more source summary post?

Here is another one that is straightforward:

The Oxford Companion to Christian Thought (2000)
Person - Hugh S. Pyper
http://books.google.com/books?id=ognCKztR8a4C&pg=PA532

"For the orthodox tradition ... the orthodox conclusion was the rather surprising one, that Jesus was a person by virtue of being the incarnate word. He was not a human person"

Additional discussion by Adrian Hastings on the incarnation, p.322 and the Christology article by David S. Ford on p. 114-118.

Here is a new one, a discussion of Gordon Haddon Clark, with a number of twists and turns.  Clark originally started with:

Was Gordon H. Clark a Nestorian Heretic? The Incarnation
http://reasonablechristian.blogspot.com/2011/12/was-gordon-h-clark-nestorian-heretic.html

But the orthodox doctrine allows the three persons of the Trinity to have one will only, while surprisingly the incarnate Jesus has two wills, one divine, one human; and yet even with a human will, and "reasonable soul," he is not a human person. 

Here is Fred Sanders, referencing Dennis M. Ferrara, "Hypostatized in the Logos,  Leontius of Byzantium, Leontius of Jerusalem and the Unfinished Business of the Council of Chalcedon", 1997, in a discussion of Chalcedon:

Jesus in Trinitarian Perspective
Chalcedonian Categories for the Gospel Narrative
Fred Sanders
http://books.google.com/books?id=qkWPkbi0NhoC&pg=PA33

Ferrara goes on to specify that the doctrine of the anhyposlatic/enhypostatic human nature of Christ enables us to affirm that Jesus Christ is a divine person and "that Christ's humanity has no independent, personal existence of its own; that, despite its consciousness and freedom, this human nature is not a personal 'who,' but exists precisely as the humanity of this divine subject. It is to acknowledge, accordingly, that Jesus Christ is not a human but a divine person, 'one of the Holy Trinity,' as
II Constantinople says.

For Sanders view, you go to p. 32.

Jesus Christ is human, and Jesus Christ is a person. It is also true that Jesus Christ is a human person ...

It is true that writers who want to be considered as orthodox Trinitarian are not necessarily consistent, even in one article.  However, for placing the historic doctrinal developments in one article, Fred Sanders is very fine. 

And in the same book, John Scott Horrell also qualifies as a good representative of the Social Trinity view (remember Millard Erickson) veering towards tritheism.

=========

Granted, the more significant question is related to social trinity conceptions, and is quite simple ... whether you believe that God exists in three distinct eternal consciousnesses.  (That question you will not touch. So I put it on a new CARM thread tonight.)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery