Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Ransom]

Yep, 1Cor 2:14 is once again proven true

I already knew 1 Cor. 2:14 is true, but once again, thanks for wasting your time stating the obvious instead of answering the questions that were asked you.

Remember, kids, when you think "weasel," think "KJV-onlyist."

 

[FSSL]

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 misuse that same passage of scripture within their view.

I fixed this for you...

You were the one who told us to only use the language of Scripture. Now look at you! Quite amazing contortions and abuse of Scripture. You have ignored the clear language of Scripture and somehow contort it to allow for Sabellianism.

A person is NOT able to deny the teaching found in this passage and claim to be a genuine believer. There is a CLEAR distinction of persons between the Son and the Father expressed in this passage. There is also a clear profession of the Deity of Christ and the Father.

You missed the Holy Spirit in verse 20.

We understand what is happening here. Steven is a KJVO. He gets the "Get Out of Defending His Error" pass. Strangely, you are giving him an "I agree with how Sabellians use this Scripture" pass as well. The antichrist is using you to help a person remain in their antagonism against the true nature of the Godhead.

 

[PappaBear]

To deny the Trinity is to deny the Incarnation. And to deny the Incarnation is to have a fatal misunderstanding of the true gospel. 

Really?  Both Trinity and Incarnation are doctrines born of strife and dogmatized by many, but missing from the word of God.  The verses you cited do apply to Christology, and I agree that we need a proper view of the Christ and His work in order to understand the gospel. But does one need to fully accept the answers supplied by Church fathers, prelates, and Roman Catholicism from the 4th century without re-examining some of the foundation for that thought from the Bible?

Let's take an example.  Tell me, according to your judgment, at which time was John MacArthur a heretic according to this article he posted about the Incarnation?  http://www.gty.org/Resources/articles/593

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=PappaBear]Both Trinity and Incarnation are doctrines born of strife and dogmatized by many, but missing from the word of God.[/quote]

This statement just shows a complete ignorance of the Bible.

 

[FSSL]

[quote author=PappaBear]Both Trinity and Incarnation are doctrines born of strife and dogmatized by many, but missing from the word of God.

This statement just shows a complete ignorance of the Bible.
[/quote]

...and unbelief. It appears we have another unbeliever posing as a believer in our forum. No wonder PappaBear is accusing the brethren and will not tell us what he believes.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

another unbeliever posing as a believer

I will let PappaBear speak for himself.  And point out that you are simply fabricating here, falling into railing accusation.  (Presumably you trying to hide an accusation in sneaky wording.)

If you really want to state that not using the special words trinity or persons is unbelief, in any sort of coherent sense, then you need to spell out the sine qua non of Christian belief.  Clearly.

Lest you be judged a false, railing accuser.

==========

e.g. Do we need to believe that there are three distinct eternal consciousnesses in God?

Wait, though, you will not even answer that for yourself!

FSSL, if you are going to accuse in this manner, if you have even an ounce of integrity, you need to spell out what is Christian belief.  Without using circular bumblings like "trinity" or words ill-defined like "persons in the Godhead", that are not scriptural.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

Well Steven... sadly PappaBear is bringing comfort in defending your position. He goes so far as to even deny the Incarnation as in the Bible. Shaking my head.

I am letting Scripture speak for itself.

I find it interesting that you are more concerned about my opinion of those who reject the Trinity. A rejection of the Trinity is a rejection of the Godhead.

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).

Of course, since I named Sabellianism (not you by name) and you deflect and refuse to clarify your beliefs, your reaction here is revealing.

This passage is not talking about a god charading as the Son, then as the Father. This passage shows two distinct "Persons"  and vs 20 ref the third..  the Holy Spirit.

 

[PappaBear]

I fixed this for you...

Nope, you just made another vain attempt to put your words in my mouth.  A common tactic of yours.

You were the one who told us to only use the language of Scripture. Now look at you! Quite amazing contortions and abuse of Scripture. You have ignored the clear language of Scripture and somehow contort it to allow for Sabellianism.

 
I told you what?  I didn't say use the language of scripture, but to use some scripture.  Other than that, I gave my perception of Stephen Avery's answers.  I am not the one who has ignored the "clear language" of scripture, cause I can count and 2 does not equal 3.  Having actually spent time speaking with Arianists and defending the gospel of Christ, I do have the benefit of experience in how they will answer.  Believe it or not, they tend to read 1John, too. 

A person is NOT able to deny the teaching found in this passage and claim to be a genuine believer.

I agree, wholeheartedly.

There is a CLEAR distinction of persons between the Son and the Father expressed in this passage.

You think so?  Not without 1John 5:7,8.  In light of the Comma, I do believe that there is a distinction, but others who do not agree with that will see parallel passages that allow for modalism or adoptionism as valid explanations of 1John 2:22-25.  And considering John 14:7-11, and even more telling John 14:20-24, they can make a pretty persuasive argument.  Simply, the only way you can limit this passage is to go outside of scripture and force your theological word definitions upon the passage (which is what you are trying to do), or use parallel passages that support the concept more plainly than what others believe.  John 10:30 is a good place for that.  1Cor 12 is also valuable.  But you lack biblical familiarity and lean much more heavily to your god, Calvin, and his disciples.

There is also a clear profession of the Deity of Christ and the Father.

I will agree.  But the issue is not about the deity, but Trinity.

You missed the Holy Spirit in verse 20.

Nope, you missed it.  Do you find anywhere in your post you referenced it?  And yes, I did see it since I read the entire passage for context before my first post.  But as you can see, verse 20 only states that we have an unction from "the Holy One."  Unlike the uniting of the Son and the Father, it treats Him separately.  Like the baptism of Jesus where you have the Father speaking from heaven, the Son in the water, and the Holy Spirit appearing in the form of a dove, you have a display of the Three, but nothing in the passage linking all 3 in homoosious.  My faith is that it is a serious error to make theological demands without clear scriptural justification.  You claim it as clear, but as you have often done in the past, your claim is empty and very clearly bogus.  A modalist or adoptionist can use the passage without the slightest hesitation.  The burden you have is to show from the scripture by proper interpretive method that their interpretation of the passage is wrong and that the Father and Son (in this passage) are spoken of consubstantially.

We understand what is happening here. Steven is a KJVO. He gets the "Get Out of Defending His Error" pass. Strangely, you are giving him an "I agree with how Sabellians use this Scripture" pass as well. The antichrist is using you to help a person remain in their antagonism against the true nature of the Godhead.

  No, Mr. Avery may be KJVO, but he is explaining his belief from scripture, not using your theological terms only found outside of scripture.  That is NOT an error.  If anyone is in error here, it is you that have full well rejected the LORD's words and do not keep His sayings (see John 14:20-24) but instead twist and corrupt in order to falsely accuse, and add your idolatrous traditions alongside (if not superior to) the Bible.  Simply put, you hate the brethren, and would put the match to the stake if it were in your power to do so.

 

[PappaBear]

Well Steven... sadly PappaBear is bringing comfort in defending your position. He goes so far as to even deny the Incarnation as in the Bible. Shaking my head.

Correction, you pervert!  PappaBear does NOT deny "the Incarnation."  He does deny that the word is found in the Bible. 

The problem, though, is how you define or apply your non-scriptural terminology as a litmus test of Christian faith.  There are early disagreements on "the Incarnation" and how it is interpreted as well.  Using human creeds and ignoring the scriptures in teaching only means having to re-fight the Christological controversies every couple of generations.  God was manifest in the flesh, the Word was made flesh ... It is much better to keep His words than invent your own which can be used, abused, and misunderstood.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I am letting Scripture speak for itself.

Then you will not use "Trinity" or "persons in the Godhead" as your fundamental requirement.

I find it interesting that you are more concerned about my opinion of those who reject the Trinity.

This came up only because became, in this thread, a hypocritical false accuser.

A rejection of the Trinity is a rejection of the Godhead.

Is that the "economic trinity"? Or is it three distinct eternal consciousnesses in God? Or something else.

1 John 2:22-25 
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

You must have strange glasses if you see "three persons in the Godhead" there.  A powerful scripture, and my fundamental Christology.  Thanks for sharing from the word of God. Refreshing (although I switched texts to increase purity).

Shalom,
Steven 

 

[FSSL]

Then you will not use "Trinity" or "persons in the Godhead" as your fundamental requirement.

Since you are into lecturing us on the terms we are supposed to and not supposed to us... when will you stop saying "Jesus is a human person" and "fundamental Christology." Scripture never uses that phrasing either.

I think you noticed PappaBear using the phrase "Diety of Christ?" Why are you lecturing me and not him?

You must have strange glasses if you see "three persons in the Godhead" there.

It is called "Holy Spirit illumination" that is gifted upon believers at the time of their "effectual calling" precipitated by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

 

[FSSL]

Correction, you pervert!

You! ... you! ... mashed-potato head!

Both Trinity and Incarnation are doctrines born of strife and dogmatized by many, but missing from the word of God.

...God was manifest in the flesh, the Word was made flesh ... It is much better to keep His words than invent your own which can be used, abused, and misunderstood.

A perfect example of where plenty of heresies can be camouflaged.

 

[prophet]

Apparently, we are fighting for the sake of fighting, now.
Pointing out that a term is not found in scripture døes not =denying truth.
Pitting scripture against non-scriptural terminology is an irreconcilable inequality, as the legs of a lame man.

As I see it, several posters have claimed to believe only the scripture, as a basis for understanding the eternal Godhead.  For this they have been labeled 'unbelievers'. 
Cast me in among these 'heretics', and burn us all at the stake.  Pope FSSL, and Cardinal Ransom can officiate.
On the other hand, we have posters who build upon premises spelled out by man, mixed with Scripture (I allow for the M.V.'s to 'contain scripture', as well as opinion, error, and filler.  So, I use the term 'Scripture'). 
These 2 sides can never meet, they are arguing with a basket of apples, against a bag of mixed fruit.

If the argument could be limited to scripture, excluding confessions, no matter how pertinent they may appear, the actual topic at hand may be addressed and clarity begin to take shape.

In my utopia, this is how doctrinal differences would be resolved.
:-X

Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

As I see it, several posters have claimed to believe only the scripture, as a basis for understanding the eternal Godhead.  For this they have been labeled 'unbelievers'. 
Cast me in among these 'heretics', and burn us all at the stake.  Pope FSSL, and Cardinal Ransom can officiate.

Actually... we have already been told by Steven that he is a...

nonTrinitarian
oneness
"Divine Persons" is neither in Scripture or even right theology
Does not see the Trinity in the 1 John passage

If Ransom, me or any other modern version user, said the same thing, the KJVO would be all over that! Unfortunately, the KJVO gets wrankled with variants in the NIV, but compromises on the actual doctrine of God.

Are you able to overlook these problems? Can you not see that people abuse Scripture by having their own secret definitions for terms like "manifest?" When the Sabellian uses the phrase "Son of God" does he believe the same thing as the Trinitarian?

Instead of trying to defend the Trinity, the KJVO who claims to hold the Scripture in highest regard is using subterfuge. This "Scripture-language-only" is a camouflage that John Gill pointed out last century.

 

[FSSL]

Is that the "economic trinity"? Or is it three distinct eternal consciousnesses in God? Or something else.

20 But you have been anointed by the Holy One, and you all have knowledge. 21 I write to you, not because you do not know the truth, but because you know it, and because no lie is of the truth. 22 Who is the liar but he who denies that Jesus is the Christ? This is the antichrist, he who denies the Father and the Son. 23 No one who denies the Son has the Father. Whoever confesses the Son has the Father also. 24 Let what you heard from the beginning abide in you. If what you heard from the beginning abides in you, then nyou too will abide in the Son and in the Father. 25 And this is the promise that he made to us—eternal life. (1 Jn 2:20–25)

who have been chosen according to the foreknowledge of God the Father, through the sanctifying work of the Spirit, for obedience to Jesus Christ and sprinkling by his blood: (1 Pe 1:2)

 

[Ransom]

Apparently, we are fighting for the sake of fighting, now.

The remedy is in the first post of this thread. Care to take a stab at championing the KJV-only cause against the NIV? PappaBear ran away, and AVery never tried.

 

[PappaBear]

I would love to open up a new forum called "PappaBear vs. PappaBear."

That sounds interesting!   But I think I would prefer it to be titled something like, "The Bear Cave" or "Growls from the Den" or something cool like that.  Think you could help set up my own website for real fighting fundamentalists?  It would be based on Baptist principles instead of worshiping at the altar of Calvin, and would have a more honorable staff of Christians rather than a posse of cronies.

 

[Ransom]

But I think I would prefer it to be titled something like, "The Bear Cave" or "Growls from the Den" or something cool like that.

Or "The Woods," since PappaBear does here what bears do there.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Care to take a stab at championing the KJV-only cause against the NIV? PappaBear ran away, and AVery never tried.

Why would I try to champion a doctrine multi-defined and ill-defined with a version ill and corrupt?

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

Do you agree with Louis Berkhof?

"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, p. 86, 1996.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Nope, you just made another vain attempt to put your words in my mouth.  A common tactic of yours.

True. However, the bright side is that he used to be much worse in this regard.

Other than that, I gave my perception of Stephen Avery's answers.  I am not the one who has ignored the "clear language" of scripture, cause I can count and 2 does not equal 3.  Having actually spent time speaking with Arianists and defending the gospel of Christ, I do have the benefit of experience in how they will answer.  Believe it or not, they tend to read 1John, too.

Finally, a poster who understands some of the doctrinal nuances.  In fact, Luther's pastor-teacher John Bugenhagen called the heavenly witnesses verse an "arian blasphemy".  He was wrong, but at least this shows you how easily even the pure scriptures can be misunderstood.

There is a CLEAR distinction of persons between the Son and the Father expressed in this passage.

You think so?  Not without 1John 5:7,8.  In light of the Comma, I do believe that there is a distinction,

Interestingly, the astute John Gill built his trinitarian defense directly on his understanding of the heavenly witnesses.
http://ovocebaptistainoltenia.wordpress.com/2010/05/03/the-doctrine-of-the-holy-trinity-and-the-authenticity-of-1-john-57-john-gill-1697-1771/

While I disagree some with his interpretative sense, it again shows that if there is an overt, defendable trinitarian doctrine (which varies a lot by writer) it will be based on the heavenly witnesses.  See the Berkhof quote as well.

but others who do not agree with that will see parallel passages that allow for modalism or adoptionism as valid explanations of 1John 2:22-25. 

Other than combating gnostic, maybe Apollinarian tendencies, the section is more contra trinitarian doctrine than for.  I am rather amazed that the case of FSSL is so weak that he goes to a section that really gives zero support to orthodox trinitarian doctrine.

1 John 2:22-25 
Who is a liar but he that denieth that Jesus is the Christ? He is antichrist, that denieth the Father and the Son. Whosoever denieth the Son, the same hath not the Father: (but) he that acknowledgeth the Son hath the Father also. Let that therefore abide in you, which ye have heard from the beginning. If that which ye have heard from the beginning shall remain in you, ye also shall continue in the Son, and in the Father. And this is the promise that he hath promised us, even eternal life.

If this is meant to be a trinity proof-text, this is a classic case of "the truant Holy Spirit" (a phrase taken from Robert Sabin.)  The Holy Spirit is not even in the verses.  See below for a discussion of 1 John 2:20.

You must have strange glasses if you see "three persons in the Godhead" there.

It is called "Holy Spirit illumination" that is gifted upon believers at the time of their "effectual calling" precipitated by comparing Scripture with Scripture.

If a person thinks that Holy Spirit illumination incomprehensibly morphs this section from 1 John 2 into a trinitarian proof-text for "three persons in the Godhead" they might just as well walk with a "burning in the bosom".

And considering John 14:7-11, and even more telling John 14:20-24, they can make a pretty persuasive argument.  Simply, the only way you can limit this passage is to go outside of scripture and force your theological word definitions upon the passage (which is what you are trying to do), or use parallel passages that support the concept more plainly than what others believe.  John 10:30 is a good place for that.  1Cor 12 is also valuable.  But you lack biblical familiarity and lean much more heavily to your god, Calvin, and his disciples.

John 14:7-11
If ye had known me, ye should have known my Father also: and from henceforth ye know him, and have seen him. Philip saith unto him, Lord, shew us the Father, and it sufficeth us. Jesus saith unto him, Have I been so long time with you, and yet hast thou not known me, Philip? he that hath seen me hath seen the Father; and how sayest thou then, Shew us the Father? Believest thou not that I am in the Father, and the Father in me? the words that I speak unto you I speak not of myself: but the Father that dwelleth in me, he doeth the works. Believe me that I am in the Father, and the Father in me: or else believe me for the very works' sake.

John 14:20-24 
At that day ye shall know that I am in my Father, and ye in me, and I in you. He that hath my commandments, and keepeth them, he it is that loveth me: and he that loveth me shall be loved of my Father, and I will love him, and will manifest myself to him. Judas saith unto him, not Iscariot, Lord, how is it that thou wilt manifest thyself unto us, and not unto the world? Jesus answered and said unto him, If a man love me, he will keep my words: and my Father will love him, and we will come unto him, and make our abode with him. He that loveth me not keepeth not my sayings: and the word which ye hear is not mine, but the Father's which sent me.

John 10:30 
I and my Father are one.

There is also a clear profession of the Deity of Christ and the Father.

I will agree.  But the issue is not about the deity, but Trinity.

You missed the Holy Spirit in verse 20.

Nope, you missed it.  Do you find anywhere in your post you referenced it?  And yes, I did see it since I read the entire passage for context before my first post.  But as you can see, verse 20 only states that we have an unction from "the Holy One."  Unlike the uniting of the Son and the Father, it treats Him separately.  Like the baptism of Jesus where you have the Father speaking from heaven, the Son in the water, and the Holy Spirit appearing in the form of a dove, you have a display of the Three, but nothing in the passage linking all 3 in homoosious.  My faith is that it is a serious error to make theological demands without clear scriptural justification.  You claim it as clear, but as you have often done in the past, your claim is empty and very clearly bogus.  A modalist or adoptionist can use the passage without the slightest hesitation.  The burden you have is to show from the scripture by proper interpretive method that their interpretation of the passage is wrong and that the Father and Son (in this passage) are spoken of consubstantially.

No, Mr. Avery may be KJVO, but he is explaining his belief from scripture, not using your theological terms only found outside of scripture.  That is NOT an error.  If anyone is in error here, it is you that have full well rejected the LORD's words and do not keep His sayings (see John 14:20-24) but instead twist and corrupt in order to falsely accuse, and add your idolatrous traditions alongside (if not superior to) the Bible.  Simply put, you hate the brethren, and would put the match to the stake if it were in your power to do so.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery