Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

  apply your non-scriptural terminology as a litmus test of Christian faith ... 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.

Amen.  Especially when the pure Bible verses are so powerful and clear. It is hard to improve on perfection.

Remember, though, that none of the versions recommended by FSSL say "God was manifest in the flesh".

And some of his versions do speak of the "only begotten God".

So it is very hard for anyone like FSSL to stand on scripture.  Thus the preference for all the obscure and ill-defined jargon, supported by possible allusions from some versions of "scripture", augmented by self-perceived "Holy Spirit illumination".

One major difference, whether AV defenders agree or disagree on a doctrine, they know what are the words of God pertaining to the question.  A very big difference. 

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[prophet]

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.

Ok.  I'll bite. And I'll confess to an unorthodox view of the trinity, myself.
I and my Father are one.  Before Abraham was, I am.  These 3 are 1. God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.  The Father, the Word,  and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Without 1John 5:7, how does one answer the Azusa Street Wizards' claim of :'the Holy Ghost is a force, not a person'?

Doesn't Genesis' 'Let us',  lead one to the 3 separate eternal consciouses, John 1's "with God" confirming?  Doesn't the Comma give clarity, and establish "Trinitarian" understanding, without which, every wind of surmised doctrine can blow?


Anishinabe

 

[FSSL]

Doesn't the Comma give clarity, and establish "Trinitarian" understanding, without which, every wind of surmised doctrine can blow?
Anishinabe

Ask Avery how he interprets 1 John 5:7... he does not see the Trinity yet heartily defends that verse.
Why are the Trinitarians having to answer for everything and not Steven?

 

[Ransom]

Ok.  I'll bite. And I'll confess to an unorthodox view of the trinity, myself.

Sorry, I'm only interested in orthodox views of the Trinity. People with unorthodox views aren't approaching the question from the position of truth.

 

[FSSL]

Sorry, I'm only interested in orthodox views of the Trinity. People with unorthodox views aren't approaching the question from the position of truth.

This has been quite an amazing thread. We have people subscribing to a myth about a particular version being the exclusive Word of God while diminishing the nature of God, Himself. KJVOs eventually reveal that they are not and have not been orthodox.

It just happened so quickly!

 

[Ransom]

KJVOs eventually reveal that they are not and have not been orthodox.

KJV-only orthodoxy is "protect the claim of KJV perfection at all costs." All other concerns (the nature of God, the person of Christ, separation from false brethren, truthfulness) are ancillary.

 

[prophet]

Doesn't the Comma give clarity, and establish "Trinitarian" understanding, without which, every wind of surmised doctrine can blow?
Anishinabe

Ask Avery how he interprets 1 John 5:7... he does not see the Trinity yet heartily defends that verse.
Why are the Trinitarians having to answer for everything and not Steven?

I'm  sorry, I thought I was answering Ransom, returning to the OP, and was named 'prophet'.

Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

Ok.  I'll bite. And I'll confess to an unorthodox view of the trinity, myself.

Sorry, I'm only interested in orthodox views of the Trinity. People with unorthodox views aren't approaching the question from the position of truth.

Quack, quack.  You asked, I answered, you ducked. 


Anishinabe

 

[prophet]

KJVOs eventually reveal that they are not and have not been orthodox.

KJV-only orthodoxy is  "protect the claim of KJV perfection at all costs." All other concerns (the nature of God, the person of Christ, separation from false brethren, truthfulness) are ancillary.

Maybe 'Orthodoxy' is a system by which the Nicolaitans conquer.  After all, hasn't  much blood been shed by the 'Orthodox'?
Still looking for the post-mv-kjvo movement's first 'wet inquisition'.
Have any such 'orthodoxy subscribers been persecuted to the death?  I think that some may feel persecuted, and there is ,sadly, no lack of bullies among the kjvo; But where have these demons done their worst deed, and declared death to the orthodox?
Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

Quack, quack.  You asked,

I asked:

1. Please provide your definition of the Trinity that constitutes "the orthodox view." I could provide my own, or infer one from your previous post; however, I would rather you explicitly spell one out, in this very thread.
2. Will you agree that if I can show from the NIV exclusively that it teaches the orthodox view of the Trinity, per your provided definition, that your challenge has been met?

Did you actually answer the questions that were posed? Nope.

I answered,

You answered, not with an "orthodox view" of the Trinity, but an admission that you held an unorthodox view - and a word salad that was, at best, incoherent.

As for question #2, you provided no answer at all.

you ducked.

Wrong. I set the ground rules in the OP. You didn't meet them.

 

[Ransom]

Maybe 'Orthodoxy' is a system by which the Nicolaitans conquer.

Since no one knows virtually anything about "Nicolaitans," I doubt you have any further insight into their habits.

In fact, "Nicolaitan" as used by fundies these days means nothing more than "poop head."

After all, hasn't  much blood been shed by the 'Orthodox'?
Still looking for the post-mv-kjvo movement's first 'wet inquisition'.
Have any such 'orthodoxy subscribers been persecuted to the death?  I think that some may feel persecuted, and there is ,sadly, no lack of bullies among the kjvo; But where have these demons done their worst deed, and declared death to the orthodox?

Cool. Not only sour grapes, but paranoid sour grapes.

 

[FSSL]

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.[/color]

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.

So, I use ONLY the Scripture and it still doesn't work for you. Instead of taking John at his word, you say it has nothing to do with the Trinity. However, you get the luxury to take an obviously interpretative phrase from Robert Sabin ("truant Holy Spirit") to discredit the Scripture.

I see how this works!

It didn't take me long to illustrate that John Gill is absolutely right! Those who demand that we only use the language of Scripture are hiding a lot of heresy.

Your failure to see all three in this passage reveals once again your antipathy, not just for the Trinity, but the clarity of Scripture, itself, including the KJV. Verse 20 says, "But ye have an unction from the Holy One, and ye know all things." Both Anointing ("unction") and Illumination ("ye know all things") has to do with the Holy Spirit. You ignore the rest of Scripture about the ministry of the Holy Spirit.

You can tell us all you want that you "use the language of Scripture," but it is quite absurd when, in the next breath, you have to reach outside of the Scripture-language and use Oneness-speak.

It is so obvious, that your use of Scripture is just to camouflage your beliefs. They still unintentionally seep out.

This is so laughable that I wonder why I even try to take you and PappaBear seriously.

 

[FSSL]

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.

Since you want to obscure the discussion... I provided this passage as two-fold proof that...
... if one rejects the Trinity, then he has the spirit of the antichrist. It was not an entire treatise on the Trinity.
... economic Trinity

This passage was used all the way from the beginning of the fight. Your willingness to sacrifice this Scripture and allow for a legitimate claim by nonTrinitarians shows the direction your feet are pointed on this issue. Why debate US on this matter IF the nature of God is so important to you?

Using Scripture alone confounds you. We can apparently hold our own with Scripture on this issue. We don't need an obscurant, who claims to be a Trinitarian, telling us that nonTrinitarians have a legitimate claim to their interpretation on this passage. We need someone who is willing to stand for Scripture, not give excuses for it.

 

[prophet]

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.

You asked, I answered, you ducked.

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.

Ok.  I'll bite. And I'll confess to an unorthodox view of the trinity, myself.
I and my Father are one.  Before Abraham was, I am.  These 3 are 1. God hath sent forth the Spirit of his Son into your hearts, crying, Abba, Father.  In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. And the Word was made flesh, and dwelt among us.  The Father, the Word,  and the Holy Ghost: and these three are one.

Without 1John 5:7, how does one answer the Azusa Street Wizards' claim of :'the Holy Ghost is a force, not a person'?

Doesn't Genesis' 'Let us',  lead one to the 3 separate eternal consciouses, John 1's "with God" confirming?  Doesn't the Comma give clarity, and establish "Trinitarian" understanding, without which, every wind of surmised doctrine can blow?


Anishinabe

Ok.  I'll bite. And I'll confess to an unorthodox view of the trinity, myself.

Sorry, I'm only interested in orthodox views of the Trinity. People with unorthodox views aren't approaching the question from the position of truth.

Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

You asked, I answered, you ducked.

If you're expecting me to answer you differently the second time, then you are not coming from a position of rationality, and further discussion would be pointless. Sayonara.

Anishinabe

Gesundheit.

 

[prophet]

You asked, I answered, you ducked.

If you're expecting me to answer you differently the second time, then you are not coming from a position of rationality, and further discussion would be pointless. Sayonara.

Anishinabe

Gesundheit.

I'm expecting you, to be an ass.  Thanks for not disappointing me.

Anishinabe

 

[Ransom]

I'm expecting you, to be an ass.  Thanks for not disappointing me.

You're welcome. And since you still haven't answered the two questions in the OP, I will continue to take it that you have abandoned the challenge.

 

[PappaBear]

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.

Thank you for your responses.  I don't see how he could be worse at all, let alone "much worse."  He frequently edits posts long after a thread has gone beyond.  btw, did you see what he did to your post # 299 on page 30 of this thread?  You might consider deleting it, altogether.  I never had the chance to read the original, but it must have taken him apart.

He has serious control issues along the lines of Heinrich Himmler.  To allow that kind in any kind of authoritative position is dangerous at best.  When losing a debate, he routinely locks threads and begins back editing posts.  Not long ago, he locked me out of a thread in a fitful rage after doing everything else he could to place that thread out of view once I caught him incorrectly using references (he referred to a quote about Roger Williams as if it was about John Smyth).  When another poster called his attention that such actions were contrary to his own written "rules" for the forum, he posted a half-hearted false apology and said that he would "go on."  Then when I refused to return, he deleted that post, edited a couple of others, and then began to claim "victory."

The guy is really short fused and devious!  After his low-key threats toward you on the Gergasenes thread.  Perhaps he is right and something has calmed him down, because you so destroyed him on that thread and surprisingly, he has not yet deleted it.  But I figure he will eventually lose his cool and ban each of us.  He cannot tolerate being shown in error. 

 

[FSSL]

Yes. I made an error by clicking the "modify" instead of "quote" button. I acknowledged and apologized for the error.

I am prone to errors... you are prone to accusing the brethren without acknowledging when they make rectification and making stuff up.

What's worse?

 

[FSSL]

Apparently PappaBear wants to avoid this and switch the topic to me.

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.

Since you want to obscure the discussion... I provided this passage as two-fold proof that...
... if one rejects the Trinity, then he has the spirit of the antichrist. It was not an entire treatise on the Trinity.
... economic Trinity

This passage was used all the way from the beginning of the fight. Your willingness to sacrifice this Scripture and allow for a legitimate claim by nonTrinitarians shows the direction your feet are pointed on this issue. Why debate US on this matter IF the nature of God is so important to you?

Using Scripture alone confounds you. We can apparently hold our own with Scripture on this issue. We don't need an obscurant, who claims to be a Trinitarian, telling us that nonTrinitarians have a legitimate claim to their interpretation on this passage. We need someone who is willing to stand for Scripture, not give excuses for it.