Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[FSSL]

Hi,

my beliefs. I stated them clearly.

False. You very clearly refused to answer my one basic question about your beliefs.... Only that you are an economic trinitarian, yet maybe not...

See... you cannot accept my words at "face value." As I already made clear in multiple posts, I am willing to address the particulars of economic trinitarianism... However, you have not stated your own beliefs.

You said you do not use the "person" terminology for the Godhead. That needs to be discussed before you can talk about any interactions between the persons.

Instead of telling us how much you are like the Trinitarian, while calling yourself a nonTrinitarian, just please tell us what YOU believe without all of the camouflage and contortions.

 

[PappaBear]

He has already pretty much stated what he believes ... several times.  It just is not in words you want to limit him to.  It is a flagrant attempt to back him into a theological corner and tie him up by definitions of your own making. On the other hand, he is sticking with Bible usage.  And you refuse to respond with Biblical references, which is where I figure he wants to direct you.  Now, how about reference some scripture?  Or do you agree with some other theologians that the 4th century advent of the orthodox trinitarian doctrine cannot be supported by the Bible alone?  Is that why you keep avoiding the NIV, KJV or any other version at all?

 

[Ransom]

He has already pretty much stated what he believes ... several times.

Great! Why don't you explain it to the rest of us, then.

 

[biscuit1953]

He has already pretty much stated what he believes ... several times.

Great! Why don't you explain it to the rest of us, then.

Why would PappaBear want to discuss anything with someone who didn't have the same kind of salvation experience he had?  Were they singing "Just As I am" when you walked down the aisle?  How many verses did it take before your cold white knuckles which were gripping the back of the pew let loose and you took that first step for Jesus?  Do you remember the prayer that you prayed?  And most important of all did you remember to write down the date in the front of your Bible?  Was it a King James Bible?  Were they singing a contemporary Christian song when you took that first step to meet Jesus?  These are all very important questions because if your salvation experience doesn't match PappaBears' how dare you call yourself a Christian and why would a Pharisee (oops I meant  to say wise old defender of the faith) even lower himself to discuss a fundamental doctrine like the Trinity with someone like you?  Sheesh!

Of course PappaBear, if he is the same one in the old FFF rejects the apostle Paul's teachings if he can't reconcile them with what he thinks they should be.  As a matter of fact he sounds a lot like StevenAvery.  Just sayin'.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

To deny the Trinity is to deny the Incarnation.

What do you mean by "denying the Trinity" ?  The scriptures you quoted were powerful and clear, and can be fully affirmed.  In your view, what does it entail to deny the trinity?  Is the word "trinity" itself a special word, with unique powers of exposition?

e.g.
Does "deny the Trinity" mean that you do not think of God as three distinct eternal consciousnesses? 
Or does it mean acknowledging that the Word was made flesh in Jesus Christ?

If the former, then I happily and directly "deny the Trinity".  However, it is not clear that this is what you mean.  If it is the latter, then I affirm the Trinity.  Or maybe something else?

Looking forward to your response.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I am willing to address the particulars of economic trinitarianism...

Then tell us if your economic trinity affirms three distinct consciousnesses in God.  And a covenant of agreement as to which person would incarnate. 

Or if your economic trinity considers those ideas as non-scriptural and wrong, simply say so. 

Or are you concerned that speaking to these questions directly might offend some of the creedal and social trinitarians here?  And make you even more non-orthodox.

More simply, if you want to hide behind the term "economic trinity" undefined ... then tell us if your affirmation of the economic trinity is, as implied, in distinction from, in opposition to, ideas of an immanent, ontological or social trinity.

Remember, any line between a oneness perspective and a real economic trinitarianism is exceedingly thin.

Thanks.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[biscuit1953]

Hi,

To deny the Trinity is to deny the Incarnation.

What do you mean by "denying the Trinity" ?  The scriptures you quoted were powerful and clear, and can be fully affirmed.  In your view, what does it entail to deny the trinity?  Is the word "trinity" itself a special word, with unique powers of exposition?

e.g.
Does "deny the Trinity" mean that you do not think of God as three distinct eternal consciousnesses? 
Or does it mean acknowledging that the Word was made flesh in Jesus Christ?

If the former, then I happily and directly "deny the Trinity".  However, it is not clear that this is what you mean.  If it is the latter, then I affirm the Trinity.  Or maybe something else?

Looking forward to your response.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

Isa 48:16 Come ye near unto me, hear ye this; I have not spoken in secret from the beginning; from the time that it was, there am I: and now the Lord GOD, and his Spirit, hath sent me.
The speaker here is obviously God who says He has been sent by the Lord God (the Father) and by His Spirit (the Holy Spirit). 

John 15:26 But when the Comforter is come, whom I will send unto you from the Father, even the Spirit of truth, which proceedeth from the Father, he shall testify of me:
Another example of one person of the Godhead interacting with another.

Matt 28:19 Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost:
Matt 28:20 Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you: and, lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen.

As I have said, I don't have to understand the Trinity in order to believe it.  Each person of the Godhead is equally, fully and eternally God.  Nuff said.

 

[prophet]

Now why won't you answer the question I've asked you. I've found it to be generally true that two kinds of people will not answer direct questions when discussing their beliefs: those who are not fully convinced in their own mind and those who are being deliberately subversive in a less than honest way. And, frankly, I believe you are fully convinced about this.

Don't  forget category #3...Those who won't  be bullied.

Nope...I haven't found a person yet who refused to state their beliefs when asked because of 'bullying', largely because simply asking someone their beliefs isn't bullying. It might become bullying if the one asking is insistent, but they would only need to be insistent if #1 or #2 were first true.

  Amazing who responded, almost as if they had reason to believe this was aimed at them.  Hmmmmm.

Especially when he asked us and we answered.
Are we not allowed to ask him without being charged with being called bullies?
A defense of God's nature is going on.

Don't  forget category #3...Those who won't  be bullied.

Nobody's being bullied here, although Avery and PappaBear are refusing to give straight answers to questions, while demanding that everyone else jump through their hoops.

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

It is always enjoyable watching the KJVOs defend nonTrinitarians!

Well Steven, it is very rude to demand answers from those who have given them. If you want to discuss, honestly, then let us know what you believe.

 

[FSSL]

He has already pretty much stated what he believes ... several times.  It just is not in words you want to limit him to.  It is a flagrant attempt to back him into a theological corner and tie him up by definitions of your own making. On the other hand, he is sticking with Bible usage.  And you refuse to respond with Biblical references, which is where I figure he wants to direct you.  Now, how about reference some scripture?  Or do you agree with some other theologians that the 4th century advent of the orthodox trinitarian doctrine cannot be supported by the Bible alone?  Is that why you keep avoiding the NIV, KJV or any other version at all?

I suppose that since you were gone for awhile, you missed that part of the discussion. I would hate to assume that you are making a false accusation.

 

[PappaBear]

Why would PappaBear want to discuss anything with someone who didn't have the same kind of salvation experience he had? 

Salvation is not "experience", it is a spiritual new birth.  Paul claimed his salvation was a pattern to those who should believe hereafter.  (1Tim 1:16)  Are you then going to falsely claim that the old Apostle believed everyone truly saved had to be riding a horse to Damascus, or be struck blind?  Or is it simply repentance and faith as the pattern?  In error, you try to make the details important.  I have never stated that "Just As I Am" or "the prayer that you prayed" saved anyone.  In fact, I have made many posts saying exactly the opposite.  Peter dealt with that same issue in Acts 15 regarding the issue of the Gentiles being saved.  He said there that the Gentiles were saved exactly the same way the Jews were. (Acts 15:11)

Anyone lacking new birth, according to Jesus Christ, must be born again.  It is not the church you were in, the preacher that spoke the word, the text that was preached from, whether the moon was full or not, nor even the specific words of the prayer you may have prayed.  Neither is it the creed or confession you ascribe to, or the theological position you hold.  IOW, Peter won't be at the Pearly Gates to check whether you are Calvinists or Arminian.  Those of you that trust in only a mental assent of specific theological doctrines miss the boat.  As far as Pharisees, they were doctrinally correct so that Paul continued to identify with them, but they were lost when trusting their own righteousness and doctrinal correctness. 

Now, we see that you are a liar, claiming that I say things which I have not.  I do believe Ransom to be lost, not based on his individual experience, but by his own testimony, given freely, that he never had a new birth, but had always been a Christian as long as he could remember.  You will note that he has yet to give any different testimony.  Such a profession, coming from his Calvinistic covenant theology, does not match the scriptural requirement for a new birth. 

Such discussion applies well on a thread regarding the Trinity.  Believing or rejecting the Trinity is not what makes one saved or lost.  The Trinity is not even a well defined "doctrine" until the 4th Christian century, and making it a test of faith essentially writes off the early Church believers.  But things such as testifying that you have no new birth or consistent lying does have good scriptural foundation regarding whether one is a genuine Christian.

 

[FSSL]

Such discussion applies well on a thread regarding the Trinity.  Believing or rejecting the Trinity is not what makes one saved or lost.  The Trinity is not even a well defined "doctrine" until the 4th Christian century, and making it a test of faith essentially writes off the early Church believers.  But things such as testifying that you have no new birth or consistent lying does have good scriptural foundation regarding whether one is a genuine Christian.

For one who claims to be a minister of the Gospel, you certainly get orthodoxy backwards. The Trinity was well understood doctrine from the NT writers. Even the Pharisees understood the implications of the Trinity. It is precisely because Sabellians (and others) attacked NT doctrine that a defense of the Trinity had to be made.

Isn't 1 John in your Bible PappaBear? Of course, if you deny the Trinity... you are hopelessly lost and you are described as the antichrist.

22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 
24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life. (1 Jn 2:21–25).

 

[PappaBear]

He has already pretty much stated what he believes ... several times.

Great! Why don't you explain it to the rest of us, then.

Oh, I would be happy to.  But I doubt you guys will understand due to what is said in 1Cor 2:14, but here goes.

He affirms the scriptural view of God.  That is, what can be proven by scripture and scripture alone, without the theological controversies, presuppositions, and dogmas.  So, when questioning him about how he interprets unscriptural terms such as "Trinity," or "persons" or such, which are not used in the Bible to describe the Godhead, he is apparently reticent to play that game since that is where you guys draw your lines -- apart from the scriptures.  This thread is in the Bible Versions forum, and he is sticking with the topic and trying to bring it about to "what saith the scriptures?"  You guys are trying to deem him heretical for so doing based on dogmas resulting from human creeds, confessions, and councils that occurred well after the closing of the canon.  Essentially, he is declaring the age old Baptist distinctive of "The Bible is my sole authority in matters of faith and practice," all the while showing, quite ably, that you guys' authority is "anything else BUT the Bible."

Christology is a major scriptural doctrine.  Christology does not necessarily equal Trinity.  Using the example of such as Servetus whom Calvin mercilessly burned, one can affirm Jesus' Christology without adopting the orthodox trinitarian view you demand.  Deity is a major Bible doctrine.  Again, deity for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be affirmed by one who holds a modalist view while denying the Trinitarian proper (or "orthodox" or "traditional" view).  To hold to a Trinitarian view is one thing.  Proving it exclusively from scripture is, however, quite another.  Steven Avery appears satisfied and confident enough in his view to dispute with JW's, Mormons, and other cultists, who just like the Calvinists on this thread, use human logic and unscriptural dogma to dispute Bible truth.  Insistence on definition of terms not used in scripture is fruitless and improper in a Bible-based discussion, unless it is your intent to work outside the scriptures.  Apparently, his belief structure, unlike most of you on this thread, is NOT based outside the scriptures.

 

[FSSL]

He has already pretty much stated what he believes ... several times.

Great! Why don't you explain it to the rest of us, then.

Oh, I would be happy to.  But I doubt you guys will understand due to what is said in 1Cor 2:14, but here goes.

He affirms the scriptural view of God.  That is, what can be proven by scripture and scripture alone, without the theological controversies, presuppositions, and dogmas.  So, when questioning him about how he interprets unscriptural terms such as "Trinity," or "persons" or such, which are not used in the Bible to describe the Godhead, he is apparently reticent to play that game since that is where you guys draw your lines -- apart from the scriptures.  This thread is in the Bible Versions forum, and he is sticking with the topic and trying to bring it about to "what saith the scriptures?"  You guys are trying to deem him heretical for so doing based on dogmas resulting from human creeds, confessions, and councils that occurred well after the closing of the canon.  Essentially, he is declaring the age old Baptist distinctive of "The Bible is my sole authority in matters of faith and practice," all the while showing, quite ably, that you guys' authority is "anything else BUT the Bible."

Christology is a major scriptural doctrine.  Christology does not necessarily equal Trinity.  Using the example of such as Servetus whom Calvin mercilessly burned, one can affirm Jesus' Christology without adopting the orthodox trinitarian view you demand.  Deity is a major Bible doctrine.  Again, deity for Father, Son, and Holy Spirit can be affirmed by one who holds a modalist view while denying the Trinitarian proper (or "orthodox" or "traditional" view).  To hold to a Trinitarian view is one thing.  Proving it exclusively from scripture is, however, quite another.  Steven Avery appears satisfied and confident enough in his view to dispute with JW's, Mormons, and other cultists, who just like the Calvinists on this thread, use human logic and unscriptural dogma to dispute Bible truth.  Insistence on definition of terms not used in scripture is fruitless and improper in a Bible-based discussion, unless it is your intent to work outside the scriptures.  Apparently, his belief structure, unlike most of you on this thread, is NOT based outside the scriptures.

Lol!! While PappaBear wants us to believe that we are to only use the language of Scripture to defend our beliefs, he fails to use the language of Scripture in this very post.

PappaBear... you are duped. Next time you preach, don't study and make a sermon, just read the Scripture to everyone. Don't explain what it says, just read it and go home.

In fact, just copy and paste Scripture whenever you post something here. Your belief structure is showing.

 

[Ransom]

He affirms the scriptural view of God.  That is, what can be proven by scripture and scripture alone, without the theological controversies, presuppositions, and dogmas.

So you're basically going to continue this thread the way you started this thread - going to great lengths to avoid giving straight answers to straighforward theological questions.

Good to know. I'll just mark your name down alongside Avery's in the "zero credibility" column, all right?

 

[PappaBear]

Such discussion applies well on a thread regarding the Trinity.  Believing or rejecting the Trinity is not what makes one saved or lost.  The Trinity is not even a well defined "doctrine" until the 4th Christian century, and making it a test of faith essentially writes off the early Church believers.  But things such as testifying that you have no new birth or consistent lying does have good scriptural foundation regarding whether one is a genuine Christian.

For one who claims to be a minister of the Gospel, you certainly get orthodoxy backwards. The Trinity was well understood doctrine from the NT writers. Even the Pharisees understood the implications of the Trinity. It is precisely because Sabellians (and others) attacked NT doctrine that a defense of the Trinity had to be made.

Isn't 1 John in your Bible PappaBear? Of course, if you deny the Trinity... you are hopelessly lost and you are described as the antichrist.

22 Who is the liar? It is whoever denies that Jesus is the Christ. Such a person is the antichrist—denying the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father; whoever acknowledges the Son has the Father also. 
24 As for you, see that what you have heard from the beginning remains in you. If it does, you also will remain in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is what he promised us—eternal life. (1 Jn 2:21–25).

Yes, 1John is in my Bible.  That includes all of 1John chapter 5, too.  But, let's work with what you have posted and see if you can possibly understand. 

You cite 1John 2:22-25.  This primarily deals with Jesus' CHRISTHOOD.  You extrapolate from that and make it equal "The Trinity."  The basis of the word Trinity is "TRI-" which means 3.  The passage you have referenced does indeed tie the Father with the Son, and the Son with the Father, but does not force them to be consubstantial nor declares them to be separate persons.  Nevertheless, you have a passage with TWO with which you attempt to force a test of faith if you do NOT believe in THREE.  So, are you a DUALIST instead of a TRINITARIAN? 

The Bible is replete with demands of believing in our LORD's Christhood.  You will be hard pressed to show a scriptural demand of affirmation of the Trinity.  Because a modalist (Sabellian) can use that same passage of scripture within their view. 

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=PappaBear]Insistence on definition of terms not used in scripture is fruitless and improper in a Bible-based discussion, unless it is your intent to work outside the scriptures.  Apparently, his belief structure, unlike most of you on this thread, is NOT based outside the scriptures.[/quote]

I'm interested...

Can you define 'Bible' using terms only found in Scripture? After all, the word 'Bible' doesn't appear anywhere in it and a canon is surely not defined.

 

[PappaBear]

He affirms the scriptural view of God.  That is, what can be proven by scripture and scripture alone, without the theological controversies, presuppositions, and dogmas.

So you're basically going to continue this thread the way you started this thread - going to great lengths to avoid giving straight answers to straighforward theological questions.

Good to know. I'll just mark your name down alongside Avery's in the "zero credibility" column, all right?

I would count that an honor.  Yep, 1Cor 2:14 is once again proven true.  Alas, why expect differently?

 

[christundivided]

[quote author=PappaBear]Insistence on definition of terms not used in scripture is fruitless and improper in a Bible-based discussion, unless it is your intent to work outside the scriptures.  Apparently, his belief structure, unlike most of you on this thread, is NOT based outside the scriptures.

I'm interested...

Can you define 'Bible' using terms only found in Scripture? After all, the word 'Bible' doesn't appear anywhere in it and a canon is surely not defined.
[/quote]

Don't hold your breath.

 

[PappaBear]

I would count that an honor.  Yep, 1Cor 2:14 is once again proven true.  Alas, why expect differently?

Yes, cud, I count it quite an honor.  Just like the difference made between the sheep and the goats, or between the Egyptians and the Israelites, I enjoy there being a demonstrable difference between me and such as you.  As Christ said,

John 15:
18 ¶  If the world hate you, ye know that it hated me before it hated you.
19  If ye were of the world, the world would love his own: but because ye are not of the world, but I have chosen you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you.
20  Remember the word that I said unto you, The servant is not greater than his lord. If they have persecuted me, they will also persecute you; if they have kept my saying, they will keep yours also.
21  But all these things will they do unto you for my name’s sake, because they know not him that sent me.

So, your red smites are a badge of honor.  And to be written off in someone's zero credibility column who does not know the LORD puts me in better company with Christ.  So you guys stay over there in your Calvin idol worshiping and Bible denying group, and hate us, burn us, cuss us, and kill us that keep the sayings of Christ all you want.  It shows the difference.  *hat tip </)