Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

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

Well, can you?

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

As for believing the scriptures in the pure Bible are sufficient for Christology, that is simply the sensible view.  The alternative is represented above.

Note though that the pure Bible means yes to, e.g.

"God was manifest in the flesh"

And no to, eg.

"the only begotten God/god"

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

Hi,

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

Well, can you?

The 1970s called and they want their Oneness Chick Tract back.

As for believing the scriptures in the pure Bible are sufficient for Christology, that is simply the sensible view.  The alternative is represented above.

You said that you were a "oneness with modifications." Can you explain? I have difficulty finding the phrase in ANY Bible, so I suppose you are able to delineate that further rather than camouflaging your belief system.

Seriously, we can discuss this if you leave behind the silliness of a "chick-tract" dialogue and tell us, honestly and candidly what you believe. I have... it has been your turn for a long time!

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

"chick-tract" dialogue

This is an evasion of a critical issue.

Do you really think that I have to jump "how high" at convoluted verbal constructions like the Athanasian Creed?  Or your previous attempts to force non-Biblical words into my mouth for my clarification like persons in the Godhead and trinity and triune.  In terms of Bible doctrine, I don't use the terms, you are welcome to use them and define them to your heart's content.

Why would you demand of me what you would not demand of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ?

If you can't see Mark explaining to Peter as above, then something is wrong with constructs like "Jesus is not a human person" and "Jesus is not a man" and "the divine persons had a covenant of agreement about which one would incarnate".

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

One basic question.

What is you sine qua non for Christian faith beyond the Bible teachings?  "Three persons in the Godhead"? "three distinct eternal consciousnesses in God"? 

Perhaps more simply a high Christology that recognizes Jesus as God manifest in the flesh, and in whom all the fulness of the Godhead dwelleth bodily. And that we should pray directly as in Acts 7:59 in the pure Bible.

Acts 7:59
And they stoned Stephen,
calling upon God, and saying,
Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

If you not insisting that I do the "three persons" or "three distinct eternal consciousnesses" shtick, and you are willing to clearly state"

"God was manifest in the flesh"

and clearly deny (best, as a heresy) that Jesus is a:

"begotten God/god"

then our beliefs may be rather similar, differences being more semantics than substance.  Even more so if you sense the humongous problems in three distinct eternal consciousnesses. Even more so if you directly reject the idea.

By your reluctance to embrace that position, and your calling yourself an economic trinitarian, I would say you do at least sense the difficulties.

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

Since I wrote "oneness with modifications" I've learned a bit more about the fact that oneness is a big tent like trinity. (so it is hard to say what is oneness to be modified) Not as big, and at times they intersect, at times they interject.

And I did point out earlier on the forum some of my difficulties with David Bernard style oneness teaching.  And current praxis, including a de-emphasis on the Son of God by some, or many, oneness proponents. 

You can also run into specific problems like losing the human DNA/genetic/egg contribution of Mary, although that problem exists in trinitarian circles as well at times.

All of this is not on my warmest burner, and I get the sense that you question is not really to compare and learn Christology, Or at least what little can be learned outside the pure Bible declarations.

Psalms 119:105
Thy word is a lamp unto my feet,
and a light unto my path.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

This is an evasion of a critical issue.

And you want to talk about evasion?!

Why would you demand of me what you would not demand of the apostles of the Lord Jesus Christ?

The issue is why YOU use nonbiblical language (i.e., "human persons" "oneness") and then get all wrankled saying that you use only biblical language.

What is you sine qua non for Christian faith beyond the Bible teachings?  "Three persons in the Godhead"? "three distinct eternal consciousnesses in God"?

Why not tell us, succinctly and cogently what you believe instead of contorting and pretending? 

...then our beliefs may be rather similar, differences being more semantics than substance.

Well, then, what is your belief? Don't pretend to be like us when you continue to camouflage your beliefs. Go ahead and make the next post a simple, clear and definitive "Steve is..." post.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The issue is why YOU use nonbiblical language (i.e., "human persons" "oneness") and then get all wrankled saying that you use only biblical language.

You are grasping at straws.  It is orthodox trinitarianism that says that you can not say that Jesus is a human person. 

You are unhappy with that, because it shows that you are not an orthodox trinitarian.  You are an eclectic or aberrant heretical trinitarian. And so far you only identify yourself as an "economic trinitarian". 

To heighten the difficulty, oneness proponents are often considered as virtually indistinguishable from economic trinitarians (what you claim to be).  Here is an example:

Discerning the Spirit(s): A Pentecostal-Charismatic Contribution to Christian Theology of Religions (2000)
Amos Young
http://books.google.com/books?id=ulsXtyX7JY4C&pg=PA110

"What is ironic is that insofar as some Pentecostals have been given to speculation on the person and nature of God in himself, they have vehemently denied the classical doctrine of the Trinity as verging on tritheism. This group of Pentecostals emphasizes the oneness of God in accordance to the biblical witness—thus their self-designated label as 'Oneness' or Apostolic Pentecostals. Yet their theological (read God in Godself) unitarianism translates into an economic trinitarianism."

Returning to "human persons', you could try a Plan B and say that orthodox trinitarianism is not "wrong", it simply has a definitional and terminology error.  Hmm... however you would have to take that objection up with the actual orthodox trinitarians.

As for oneness, I avoid the term, similar to how I avoid trinity, as I clearly explain above, the tent is too big (although not as big as the trinity tent).  It is the contras who want to pigeon-hole and accuse by labels, while trying to ignore the basic issues like whether or not:

"God exists in three distinct eternal consciousnesses"

and instead, they are avoiding substance.  Thirty pages and you still will not answer this simple question.  If you can not give a yes or no, you could at least take some tact like:

1) I don't believe (or I'm not sure) the terminology is valid
2) I'm not sure
3) I'm studying

Rather than making excuses. e.g. At one time James White took #1, then he switched to a yes last year.

What do you see as insufficient in the scriptures themselves in declaring the Lord Jesus, if you have the pure Bible (e.g. with God was manifest in the flesh and the heavenly witnesses and without "only begotten God/god). 

Now I know this is a hard question for you to answer, because you work with contradictory and confused texts.  In fact, it may be impossible for you to answer.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Steven, you said you were "oneness with modifications." You use nonbiblical language to express your beliefs which are scattered, piecemeal throughout many forums. Please take a moment and tell us what you believe without all of the camouflage.

 

[Steven Avery]

(dup)

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

What do you see as insufficient in the scriptures themselves in declaring the Lord Jesus, if you have the pure Bible (e.g. with God was manifest in the flesh and the heavenly witnesses and without "only begotten God/god). 

Now I know this is a hard question for you to answer, because you work with contradictory and confused texts.  In fact, it may be impossible for you to answer.

Here is an example.

From my Bible, I can say that a "begotten God" is not scriptural, it is a false concept (that even crept into some trinitarian formulations).  This "begotten God/god" is embraced by the arians, like the JWs.. They run with an ultra-minority corruption from Vaticanus (before correction) of the pure Bible verse:

John 1:18 
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him.

The ultra-minority corruption, literally translated as in the NAS, the NWT and the Emphasized, gives you a begotten God/god.

So you are paralyzed. You find it difficult to come out against the arian "begotten God/god" concept for Jesus. Simply as it would invalidate some of the conflicting versions that you have to defend as an alternative to the pure Bible.

From that type of paralysis develops a fondness for the creedalism and convoluted formulations that goes around the Bible.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Steven, you said you were "oneness with modifications." You use nonbiblical language to express your beliefs which are scattered, piecemeal throughout many forums. Please take a moment and tell us what you believe without all of the camouflage.

Bumped.

You continue to talk around us, over us and distort our viewpoints that have been clearly laid out above.

Why is expressing your belief so difficult? What have you to hide? We already know you are a "oneness with modifications." Are you more in line with what the Jehovah Witnesses believe? Is that your modification? Or do you believe Jesus is His own Father? Or do you deny that the Holy Spirit is God?

Why should we be compelled to interact with you when you hide your own beliefs? Why should I be compelled to interact with you when you are so determined to twist what I believe?

If you have not developed a full-orbed understanding of your own belief on the Godhead and you don't really know how your own pieces fit together yet, that is okay. Just let us know and we can continue on in discussion.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

When I have a few minutes I will put the pure Bible verses together, with a couple of small comments.  And that represents my Christology. You will not see the word persons, triune or trinity, nor oneness.  You can then try to attach various labels. 

Similar happens with the 1st and 2nd century ECW are quoted, often they simply stay very close to scripture. And then modern interpreters superimpose later complications and convolutions upon their declarations.

What type of declaration would you demand from Peter and Mark and Paul?  Or what would you expect from those men, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit.

Beyond the scriptures.

===========

"God has three eternal distinct consciousnesses!" ... yes or no?

"The three persons had a conference to determine who would incarnate" .. yes or no?

===========

Are you more in line with what the Jehovah Witnesses believe? Is that your modification?

That is the "begotten God" belief, that is in your modern versions.  I specifically say that is a heresy above. 

(Plus they tamper with the scriptures horribly, inserting the name of Jehovah in the NT without warrant.  In addition to using the corruptions in the textus corruptus.)

Or do you believe Jesus is His own Father?

Oneness folks often seem to stumble with category errors, including on this phrase.  The father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit, as expressed in Luke.  That is 100% the reason why he is sinless. 

Or do you deny that the Holy Spirit is God?  

The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.  As we see in Genesis 1.

Genesis 1:1-2
In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth. And the earth was without form, and void; and darkness was upon the face of the deep. And the Spirit of God moved upon the face of the waters.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

And then modern interpreters superimpose later complications and convolutions upon their declarations.

You do the same with living people.

What type of declaration would you demand from Peter and Mark and Paul?  Or what would you expect from those men, under the anointing of the Holy Spirit. Beyond the scriptures.

Since they are dead, I will take them at their words.

The question is for you, a living person who still has the capacity to clarify and succinctly state his beliefs.

That is the "begotten God" belief, that is in your modern versions.  I specifically say that is a heresy above.  The father of Jesus is the Holy Spirit, as expressed in Luke.  That is 100% the reason why he is sinless. The Holy Spirit is the Spirit of God.

Okay, good baby steps. Thank you for these. See... you do use terminology, not found in Scripture, to describe your beliefs.

BTW: "begotten God" is only found in the NASB (and its update).
Other than that, it is not translated that way in our modern versions.
Nor have I seen this phrasing in the Athanasian Creed nor the Symbol of Chalcedon.

 

[Ransom]

When I have a few minutes I will put the pure Bible verses together, with a couple of small comments.  And that represents my Christology. You will not see the word persons, triune or trinity, nor oneness.  You can then try to attach various labels. 

Blah blah blah blah, BLAH blah blah blah . . .

Good freakin grief, Avery!

Just tell us what you believe. Without all the obfuscation.

Why is this so hard for you? Sheesh!

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

...I will take them at their words.

Exactly. 

The best way to handle Christology.

Use the pure Bible, and take the apostolic authors at their words.

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.

John 1:1
In the beginning was the Word,
and the Word was with God,
and the Word was God.

John 1:14 
And the Word was made flesh,
and dwelt among us,
(and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,)
full of grace and truth.

John 1:17-19
For the law was given by Moses, but grace and truth came by Jesus Christ. No man hath seen God at any time; the only begotten Son, which is in the bosom of the Father, he hath declared him. And this is the record of John, when the Jews sent priests and Levites from Jerusalem to ask him, Who art thou?

Colossians 2:9
For in him dwelleth all the fulness of the Godhead bodily.

1 John 5:7 
For there are three that bear record in heaven,
the Father, the Word, and the Holy Ghost:
and these three are one.

Isaiah 9:6 
For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given:
and the government shall be upon his shoulder:
and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counseller,
The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.

Luke 1:35 
And the angel answered and said unto her,
The Holy Ghost shall come upon thee,
and the power of the Highest shall overshadow thee:
therefore also that holy thing which shall be born of thee shall be called the Son of God.

Matthew 1:20-23
But while he thought on these things, behold, the angel of the Lord appeared unto him in a dream, saying, Joseph, thou son of David, fear not to take unto thee Mary thy wife: for that which is conceived in her is of the Holy Ghost. And she shall bring forth a son, and thou shalt call his name JESUS: for he shall save his people from their sins. Now all this was done, that it might be fulfilled which was spoken of the Lord by the prophet, saying, Behold, a virgin shall be with child, and shall bring forth a son, and they shall call his name Emmanuel, which being interpreted is, God with us.

Acts 7:59 
And they stoned Stephen, calling upon God,
and saying, Lord Jesus, receive my spirit.

Acts 4:10-13 
Be it known unto you all, and to all the people of Israel, that by the name of Jesus Christ of Nazareth, whom ye crucified, whom God raised from the dead, even by him doth this man stand here before you whole. This is the stone which was set at nought of you builders, which is become the head of the corner. Neither is there salvation in any other: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved. Now when they saw the boldness of Peter and John, and perceived that they were unlearned and ignorant men, they marvelled; and they took knowledge of them, that they had been with Jesus.

And much more. 
Let's take them at their word.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

BTW: "begotten God" is only found in the NASB (and its update). Other than that, it is not translated that way in our modern versions.

The literal Emphasized Bible and the NWT also have the literal translation. As do most translations of the Received Text, working with the pure Bible Son.

If you do not understand it being the literal translation, a good start are the articles on the Michael Marlowe bible-researcher site. A second start is  Vasileios Tsialas of Athens Greece on the b-greek forum, also Scott Jones.

What do you claim is the actual text, Son or God? 

If you simply do not know, please be honest enough to say you do not know, and/or give your probability calculations.

Nor have I seen this phrasing in the Athanasian Creed nor the Symbol of Chalcedon.

You will find this error early and later, in Clement of Alexandria, the Apostolic Constitutions, Athanasius, and other places.  Since you do not know what the Bible text says, you can only guess between two radically different alternatives, you may have to incorporate the error as an alternative doctrine.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Ransom]

If you simply do not know, please be honest enough to say you do not know.

This is the height of hypocrisy coming from the Word Merchant and King of Obfuscation.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Here is the text crashed out by FSSL, being returned to form on Oct 29, 2013.

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

Hi,

The issue is simple the identity of the Bible text, not insisting on working with vague and convoluted doctrinal expressions, which often comes down to:

"Aha, you didn't tell us what you mean when I say trinity and triune."

And my statement on the identity of the Bible text is 100% with conviction, without equivocation:

John 1:18
No man hath seen God at any time;
the only begotten Son,
which is in the bosom of the Father,
he hath declared him.

is the pure Bible text.  Proper translation, and Son, not God in the text.

And I am simply asking FSSL, and any textual cornfusenik on the forum who mixes and matches from the pure TR and the textus corruptus, to tell us how they see the verse.

Are any of you honest enough to say, eg.

"I believe it is 2/3 likely that God was original, and 1/3 likely that Son was the autographic text".

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

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

Oops!!!! Steven... I am sorry, I hit the MODIFY button instead of QUOTE and overwrote your post.
So, here is my reply with your quotes embedded. Uggh!
This is the second time this has happened! I am going to remove admin privileges from my FSSL account to prevent this in the future!!!

The issue is simple the identity of the Bible text, not insisting on working with vague and convoluted doctrinal expressions, which often comes down to: "Aha, you didn't tell us what you mean when I say trinity and triune."

No. We have already seen you play games with my beliefs. I stated them clearly. I have no intention of doing the same with you. I am interested in how a self-identified "oneness with modifications" "non-Trinitarian" views Jesus.

How can we ever have an honest discussion when you camouflage your beliefs. I could easily point out the verses you did not include. Would that be helpful? Hardly. Without understanding your perspective, we will just get into a frustrating, "I don't believe that" and have to chase down links all over the forum.

And I am simply asking FSSL, and any textual cornfusenik on the forum who mixes and matches from the pure TR and the textus corruptus, to tell us how they see the verse.

Hence the problem... you will not tell us how YOU view the godhead as presented in Scripture.

 

[Ransom]

The issue is simple the identity of the Bible text, not insisting on working wit

The issue is you refusing to articulate your beliefs concerning the nature of the Godhead, and the extremes you are going to in order to avoid doing so.

Since you cannot express what you believe, I cannot take anything you say seriously.

 

[FSSL]

The issue is simple the identity of the Bible text, not insisting on working with vague and convoluted doctrinal expressions, which often comes down to: "Aha, you didn't tell us what you mean when I say trinity and triune."

No. We have already seen you play games with my beliefs. I stated them clearly. I have no intention of doing the same with you. I am interested in how a self-identified "oneness with modifications" "non-Trinitarian" views Jesus.

How can we ever have an honest discussion when you camouflage your beliefs. I could easily point out the verses you did not include. Would that be helpful? Hardly. Without understanding your perspective, we will just get into a frustrating, "I don't believe that" and have to chase down links all over the forum.

And I am simply asking FSSL, and any textual cornfusenik on the forum who mixes and matches from the pure TR and the textus corruptus, to tell us how they see the verse.

Hence the problem... you will not tell us how YOU view the godhead as presented in Scripture.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

my beliefs. I stated them clearly.

False. You very clearly refused to answer my one basic question about your beliefs.

Does God exist in three distinct eternal consciousnesses?

This is a question that avoids confusing and vague language, like misusing persons, or the big tent word trinity, and gets to the heart of the matter.

Until you address that question, you have said diddles.

Only that you are an economic trinitarian, yet maybe not, maybe you are also a social trinitarian.  And that you affirm orthdoxy, despite contradicting it in your statements.

If you answer the one question above, I will actually have a clear idea of your beliefs.

My answer to question is a very simple and direct "no".  So who is clear and who fudges?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[biscuit1953]

John 1:1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.
John 1:14 And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us, (and we beheld his glory, the glory as of the only begotten of the Father,) full of grace and truth.
2 John 7-9
7 For many deceivers are entered into the world, who confess not that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh. This is a deceiver and an antichrist.
lest they lose the reward of their former profession
8 Look to yourselves, that we lose not those things which we have wrought, but that we receive a full reward.2  9 Whosoever transgresseth, and abideth not in the doctrine of Christ, hath not God. He that abideth in the doctrine of Christ, he hath both the Father and the Son.

To deny the Trinity is to deny the Incarnation. And to deny the Incarnation is to have a fatal misunderstanding of the true gospel.  A proper view of the person and work of Christ is what separates true believers from heretics. 

I don't have to understand how God became man in order to believe it because scripture says so.  You can have a rope made up of three strands and yet it is still one rope, the same with the Trinity.

Titus 3:10 A man that is an heretick after the first and second admonition reject;