Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Ransom]

And I told you what orthodox Trinitarianism believes, on the "human person" topic.

No. You told us what one orthodox Trinitarian wrote, and you failed to point out the qualifications that he made to his statement.

If your reasoning is so sloppy that you can't tell the difference between "what orthodox Trinitarianism believes" and "what one orthodox Trinitarian wrote," there really isn't much point in taking you seriously.

And when are you going to state in unambiguous terms what you believe concerning the Trinity? Stop obfuscating, Avery. Clarity is a virtue, you know.

 

[FSSL]

No. You told us what one orthodox Trinitarian wrote, and you failed to point out the qualifications that he made to his statement.

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. 

Once again, Avery snips the quote...

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. Nestorianism, with its assertion that Christ was two persons, though plausible on the ground of this psychology, is nonetheless, on the ground of the mediatorial atonement, a heresy.  (The Trinity, page 59).

This is just plainly deceptive. Yes, Avery... what do YOU believe about the Trinity?

 

[FSSL]

Steven, please help me understand when you ask...

Thus, I believe that the question:
"do you believe God exists in three distinct eternal consciousnesses?"
is far more meaningful than:
"do you believe in the Trinity?"

Isn't that really a misleading question since you deny that there are Persons?
Why not tell us, and the Carm posters, what you believe?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

No. You told us what one orthodox Trinitarian wrote,

No, I have given you the same point made by numerous individuals, and have confirmed multiple times (e.g. recently in the discussion with Michael Lodahl) that this is orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.  You have never contested the basics, except to make false claims about what I wrote, like you do above.

In this context, the reasoning behind it ("qualifications") are irrelevant, it is understood that the confusion comes out a type of inexorable illogic based on specific non-scriptural  presumptions (like "persons in the Godhead"). 

The point is not how they got to the convolution, confusion and and confounding of saying that Jesus is not a human person, the point is simply that this is in fact orthodox Trinitarianism, and FSSL is not an orthodox Trinitarian.  (You have not taken a stance.)

Again, though, much more fundamental is the 3dec.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=Steven Avery]...that Jesus is not a human person, the point is simply that this is in fact orthodox Trinitarianism, and FSSL is not an orthodox Trinitarian.[/quote]

As Ransom pointed out, the the question of how Jesus is both human and divine isn't even question of Trinitarian doctrine, a doctrine which doesn't address the humanity of Jesus at all. You clearly don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

FSSL, you kvetch enough on this forum, now you are kvetching about the CARM forum?

And I never indicated a beliefs in "persons in the Godhead", here or there.  And I have pointed out to you that some who are considered trinitarians have forcefully argued against the word "persons" being used doctrinally.  So in the context of the CARM thread, the whole question would be a rabbit-trail.

The purpose of the CARM thread is simple, to find out how writers, especially professed trinitarians, look at the 3dec question.  And maybe to look also at ECW and doctrinal writers on the same question.

The purpose is to get away from fuzz and buzz, to the simplest and most significant substance.  You want fuzz and buzz, browse the CARM forums.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

the question of how Jesus is both human and divine isn't even question of Trinitarian doctrine, a doctrine which doesn't address the humanity of Jesus at all.

Nonsense. This simply makes no sense. 

And I didn't notice Scott taking this absurd position, I will check back upthread a bit.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[rsc2a]

Hi,

the question of how Jesus is both human and divine isn't even question of Trinitarian doctrine, a doctrine which doesn't address the humanity of Jesus at all.

Nonsense. This simply makes no sense. 

Well, clearly you know everything so who am I to argue?

[quote author=Steven Avery]And I didn't notice Scott taking this absurd position, I will check back upthread a bit.[/quote]

Here you go:

http://www.fundamentalforums.org/bible-versions/teaching-the-trinity-from-the-niv/msg51724/#msg51724

I don't know how you will deal with the fact that you are wrong since, clearly, you think that is an impossibility.

 

[FSSL]

Hi,

the question of how Jesus is both human and divine isn't even question of Trinitarian doctrine, a doctrine which doesn't address the humanity of Jesus at all.

Nonsense. This simply makes no sense. 

And I didn't notice Scott taking this absurd position, I will check back upthread a bit.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Steven.... your fallacy is building your theology on Google snippets schlepped through your toolbar.

You have no concept of how the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrines of Christ are treated in the theologies. You found a phrase and extracted it. Here is the proof.

The topic of the humanity of Christ is NOT dealt with in the sections on Trinity, but in Christology. A simple look-back at your Berkhof source will confirm this. I am just supplying you with a picture here.

It is painfully clear that you have no concept of how all of this fits together. You have built your understanding of the Trinity through your oneness spectacles, assumptions, Google toolbar and various comments on forums. Anyone can Google... as you have demonstrated, not everyone reads and understands how theology is systematically presented.

Thank you for your clear, unequivocal opinion. I had no idea I was not an orthodox Trinitarian!

Now, would you tell us what you are? Why make us chase rabbit trails? The next post would provide you a way so as to not be mistaken.

[attachment deleted by admin]

 

[Ransom]

(You have not taken a stance.)

Really? Boy, if you actually believe that, you sure are cornfused. And possibly illiterate. And certainly engulfed in an Averian fog.

Snort!

And we're still waiting for you to explain to us, precisely and clearly, what you believe about the Trinity.  Why won't you tell us, Avery? Are you trying to obfuscate or are you just a coward?

 

[Ransom]

And I never indicated a beliefs in "persons in the Godhead", here or there.

Of course not, Avery. You prefer just to deconstruct what everyone else believes - usually incorrectly, to boot. We already know that pinning you down to what you actually believe is like nailing Jello to the wall.

 

[biscuit1953]

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"?

Are you confusing saying a prayer or remembering some time when a person walked down an aisle during an invitation with salvation?  I may be wrong but aren't you the same one in the old FFF that rejected the apostle Paul's teaching on divorce as scripture because (in your mind) it contradicted what Jesus said?

Simple yes or no question, PappaBear.  Do you deny the inspiration of scripture when it comes to the apostle Paul?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You have no concept of how the Doctrines of the Trinity and the Doctrines of Christ are treated in the theologies. You found a phrase and extracted it. Here is the proof.
The topic of the humanity of Christ is NOT dealt with in the sections on Trinity, but in Christology.

It is 100% clear that you know the the two are intrinsically related and you are playing games.

You (the orthodox Trinitarians, not you FSSL) have a trintitarian Christology  that claims that Jesus is not a human person. 

The only reason they have this Christology is that their Trinitarian conception has made Jesus into one of the "persons of the Godhead" .. thus they say he can not also be a human person.  Note: intrinsically interrelated.

(Also some gnostic and Apollinarian Christologies could be non-trinitarian and could take that view of Jesus not being a human person.)

To try to atomistically separate the trinitarian Christology from other aspects of closely connected trinitarian construction or convolution is the type of logical silliness that only a seminarian could peddle.

This is just like the evolutionists who play around denying full evolutionary theory (e.g. astronomical evolution, geological evolution) and claim that evolution only applies to the biological realm. So they won't talk about other aspects of their "theory". As a cheap debating trick.  Laughable, if it were not so sad.

Total nonsense.

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

Yes, Scott peddled this nonsense earlier. I ignored it then because it was so stupid. I didn't expect the stupidity to become the rallying cry of the "Jesus is a human person, I don't care about orthodox Trinitarian doctrine" crew.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

Since you are the one who claimed that "Jesus is not a human person" as a sine-qua-non of the Trinity.
Since we highlighted recent, standard theologies by Trinitarians using the phrase Jesus IS a "human person."
Since you came on strong against Ransom calling it the Doctrine of Christology and you said he was wrong...

... the only logical conclusion I can come to is to say, "You are struggling and have no solid grasp of Trinitarianism."

I am not going to lower myself to call you, or anyone else "stupid." I will say, you have a skewed grasp of what Trinitarianism is.

Take off your oneness glasses off and get yourself a Systematic Theology and read through it from beginning to end. Here are three recommendations:

Wayne Grudem, Systematic Theology.
Robert Reymond, Systematic Theology
Millard Erickson, Systematic Theology

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Since you are the one who claimed that "Jesus is not a human person" as a sine-qua-non of the Trinity.

No. Of the orthodox Trintiarian position. And that was shown multi-fold in the thread.

And I clearly stated that there were some who considered themselves Trinitarian who do not accept the orthodox position.  Including all of those who eschew the description of God as "persons", yet consider themselves trinitarian.  And many others, like the Michael Lodahl quote that I placed on the forum (where he checked and acknowledged that it would not be considered orthodox trinitarianism.)

And the position of trying to separate trinitarianism and its Christology is stupid. There is really no kinder way to put it, unless you want to emphasize that it is a clever, tricky and absurd debating trick (in which case it might not be stupid.)  Since the position was taken only for cheap debating trick purposes, first by Scott, then by others, the latter may trump the former.

There are two reasons for your politicking.

1) You do not want to acknowledge the orthodox Chalcedon trinitarian position which is that Jesus is not a human person.

2) You want a diversion from saying whether God exists in three distinct, eternal consciousnesses.

In the big picture, (2) is more significant than (1).

Millard Erickson, whom you are recommending, is one who gives an emphatic yes to the consciousnesses question. 

"The Trinity is a communion of three persons, three centers of consciousness"

You won't even affirm or deny his position on the most basic and fundamental point.

Here is one example of the trinitarian reaction to this position.

"Clearly, the view of the Trinity by Erickson echoes the rise to prominence of communion theology in current theology in which Trinity is seen as a divine society of equals. From Pannenberg, Erickson borrows the idea that all Trinitarian members have their own center of consciousness as well as the idea of mutual dependency."
The Trinity: Global Perspectives  by Veli-Matti Kärkkäinen p. 17

See Michael Chiavone for much more on the strange Millard Erickson trinity doctrine.  And remember, above I showed you that Erickson makes a mish-a-mosh of any historical or traditional concept of processionism in trinitarian doctrine. 

Now you recommend Erickson's "systematic theology" without even saying whether you agree with him on his fundamental position of three consciousnesses!

Your in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Ransom]

Yes, Scott peddled this nonsense earlier. I ignored it then because it was so stupid. I didn't expect the stupidity to become the rallying cry of the "Jesus is a human person, I don't care about orthodox Trinitarian doctrine" crew.

Good grief. You are, in a word, oblivious.

 

[FSSL]

...your politicking.
...You do not want to acknowledge
...You want a diversion
...You won't even affirm or deny
...without even saying whether you agree with him on his fundamental position of three consciousnesses!

Your in Jesus,
Steven

So... what do YOU believe?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Once again, I can quote the scriptures about how Jesus is God manifest in the flesh, the Word was made flesh, the most important commandment, all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth in Jesus, etc. and tell you that I (like you will see in the Bible and the early church writers) find that a full, very happy and satisfactory explanation of the Lord Jesus Christ.

And you will politic around about an Athanasian Creed, with or without Chalcedon.

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

Could you even imagine a conversation like this between Peter and Paul, or Peter and Mark?

P) "If was amazing to live and walk with the Lord Jesus, he was the most incredible man who ever lived, teachings, healing, compassion, the Saviour of mankind, he gave his life as the atoning sacrifice for us ... I was so blessed to live in his presence, even when I stumbled, he picked me up."

M) "Just remember, Peter, he was not really a man, he was one of the three divine God-persons, and the Divine Person only took on a human nature for our benefit"

P) "Oh, thank you, I forgot"
'
M) "And don't also forget that there are two others in the Godhead, and they make up a community, a Social Trinity, communicating eternally with their three consciousneses.  They even had a conference way back when to decide which one of the three would incarnate."

P) "Oh, thank you, again, I forgot once again"

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

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Once again, I can quote the scriptures about how Jesus is God manifest in the flesh...

And so can we!

Since the following phrases are NOT found in the Bible, "human person" "oneness" your statement is not answering the question.

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

We already know you are a "oneness with modifications," you identify yourself with Praxeus, and you reject the use of "persons" in reference to the Godhead. Surely, our request for clarity of your belief, in a solid post, will give us the opportunity to have an honest discussion. I am not interested in a discussion where one camouflages his position.

 

[Ransom]

Once again, I can quote the scriptures

But you can't articulate with any clarity what you actually believe.

How pathetic.