Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[rsc2a]

Surly PappaBear knows of 1 Peter 1:1–2, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and others like those found in both the KJV and NIV.

PappaBear's "argument" is that unless you have one particular verse (i.e. 1 John 5:7-8 as found in the KJV), you can't actually defend the orthodox view of the Trinity (even though the great Trinitarian apologists of the early centuries of the Church didn't use it).

It's based on a terrible hermeneutic that is dependent on magic number puzzles and word searches, all the while ignoring virtually all historical and literary consideration. This is followed by only the shallowest of proof-texts to "make" your point. Take away that verse and they find their position indefensible.

The depth of Scripture and the inter-weavings of the various passages (an impossible concept to the hyper-dispensationalist) that can be used to provide sound Biblical basis for not just matters of orthodoxy, but also orthopraxy, is lost by utilizing such Bible "study" as described above.

 

[Timothy]

Surly PappaBear knows of 1 Peter 1:1–2, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and others like those found in both the KJV and NIV.

PappaBear's "argument" is that unless you have one particular verse (i.e. 1 John 5:7-8 as found in the KJV), you can't actually defend the orthodox view of the Trinity (even though the great Trinitarian apologists of the early centuries of the Church didn't use it).

I could be wrong, but isn't it common knowledge among Bible teachers and preachers that no doctrine should be built on one singular verse?

 

[Ransom]

I could be wrong, but isn't it common knowledge among Bible teachers and preachers that no doctrine should be built on one singular verse?

Yes, as a general rule (although I wouldn't be surprised if there were a few exceptions).

Of course, if KJV-onlyists were actually familiar with sound hermeneutics (not to mention sound history, sound theology, and sound logic), they wouldn't be KJV-onlyists. Unfortunately, their most vocal proponents have thrown sound anything under the bus in favour of numerology, wordplay, and other superstitious nonsense having no place in Christian thought.

 

[PappaBear]

Surly PappaBear knows of 1 Peter 1:1–2, 2 Corinthians 13:14, and others like those found in both the KJV and NIV.

"May the grace of the Lord Jesus Christ, and the love of God, and the fellowship of the Holy Spirit be with you all." 2 Corinthians 13:14

But does that show the ORTHODOX doctrine of the Trinity where they are all one substance?  No.  A modalist or adoptionist could find perfect agreement in mentioning the 3 together.  Such as at the Baptism of Christ when the Son was in the water, the Father spoke from heaven, and the Holy Spirit was in the form of a dove. 

Being a believer in the Trinity, I am perfectly satisfied that it can be done.  Just like Jack Moorman said in his debate with James White, the doctrine is there, but it is diluted.  It is far easier to establish the doctrine with 1John 5:11-12 than without it.  And contrary to others' statements, it has early testimony in the patristics to establish its presence. 

I do not have inclination to bite at this line because I do not want to "argue" such a doctrinal point with a lost man, neither do I want to be forced into "debating" against a position I hold.

 

[FSSL]

It is far easier to establish the doctrine with 1John 5:11-12 than without it.

That's funny, because when I was debating KJVO nonTrinitarians, they always focus on the word "one."

 

[PappaBear]

It is far easier to establish the doctrine with 1John 5:11-12 than without it.

That's funny, because when I was debating KJVO nonTrinitarians, they always focus on the word "one."

I have good reason to highly suspect that your definition of "KJVO nonTrinitarians" is not one they would own.  Honesty does not appear to be either a Calvinists strong suit, nor your own.  Want to provide some links to these "debates" so it can be seen whether these are truly non-Trinitarians?

 

[FSSL]

It is far easier to establish the doctrine with 1John 5:11-12 than without it.

That's funny, because when I was debating KJVO nonTrinitarians, they always focus on the word "one."

I have good reason to highly suspect that your definition of "KJVO nonTrinitarians" is not one they would own.  Honesty does not appear to be either a Calvinists strong suit, nor your own.  Want to provide some links to these "debates" so it can be seen whether these are truly non-Trinitarians?

Like many KJVOs we have dealt with, you wouldn't understand the debate, or you will defend the nonTrinitarian because of his defense of the KJVO position. BTW, he will not give us a straight answer about the deity of Christ either. This is just one. I have dealt with another (behind the scenes) at av1611.com

Nevertheless, here goes: http://www.fundamentalforums.com/bible-versions/76134-why-do-kjv-compromisers-mollycoddle-anti-trinitarian-heretic-avery-5.html#post1587649

 

[OZZY]

Is this true Ransom?

No, not really.

but was it true back in the day when you stated it as fact?

 

[Ransom]

but was it true back in the day when you stated it as fact?

I never stated it as fact. Don't lie.

 

[PappaBear]

but was it true back in the day when you stated it as fact?

I never stated it as fact. Don't lie.

He is not lying.  You stated it of our own volition in your own words on a thread in the Fellowship forum started by Elizabeth.  A rather long thread that included the salvation testimonies of many.  And which I broke out to a separate thread dealing specifically with yours, where you, the Griffin, Justy, and a few other hypers insisted on defending the Covenant Theology of the Hypers.  But it started from your own words. 

No, my friend.  Ozzy does not lie.  But are you now denying that testimony from back then?  Can you give a clear cut testimony of your conversion experience in Christ?  Or do you believe it was when you adopted a proper creed?

 

[Ransom]

No, my friend.

*snort*

Ozzy does not lie.

Ozzy is a contrarian. He is nothing to me, nor are his opinions. You are welcome to them.

But are you now denying that testimony from back then?  Can you give a clear cut testimony of your conversion experience in Christ?  Or do you believe it was when you adopted a proper creed?

Oh, that's rich. You insist that my testimony is defective. You cannot post a single word of it in support of your assertions, so you ask me to rewrite it for you? Pfft. Go bother someone else, twit.

And you still haven't answered the two questions from the OP. So much for your vapid assertion that the orthodox view of the Trinity cannot be taught from a Bible without the Comma.

But hey - if it weren't for obvious lies and the liars who tell them, KJV-onlyism would be extinct.

 

[PappaBear]

Oh, that's rich. You insist that my testimony is defective. You cannot post a single word of it in support of your assertions, so you ask me to rewrite it for you?

You are right.  It is rich.  Because neither can you post a single word of one.  You appear not to have one that passes the gospel test.  Only your subscription to a creed and coverage by Calvin's covenant.

 

[Ransom]

You are right.  It is rich.  Because neither can you post a single word of one.

Great - in light of the fact that by your own admission, you cannot post any support for your assertion, we can take it as proven that you are a bearer of false witness. Thanks for playing.

 

[PappaBear]

Oh, that's rich. You insist that my testimony is defective. You cannot post a single word of it in support of your assertions, so you ask me to rewrite it for you?

You are right.  It is rich.  Because neither can you post a single word of one.  You appear not to have one that passes the gospel test.  Only your subscription to a creed and coverage by Calvin's covenant.

PappaBear... do you have a valid Baptism? Can you geneologically trace your Baptism to John the Baptist?

admin, do you equate Baptism with regeneration?  Are they coequal?  Apparently you believe so, based on your own post above and your defense of modern versions that eliminate Acts 8:37. 

I have a valid believer's baptism AFTER my conversion experience at age 8.  Philip's challenge to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:37 pretty well establishes the qualifying need of being born again BEFORE.  Do you understand the Baptist's definition of "Believer's Baptism" as opposed to your modern versions teaching of pedobaptism?

More importantly, do YOU have a valid conversion experience?  Have you ever been born again?  Somehow, I am beginning to have my doubts.  Perhaps you can share some details of a testimony, if indeed you have one.

 

[bgwilkinson]

Oh, that's rich. You insist that my testimony is defective. You cannot post a single word of it in support of your assertions, so you ask me to rewrite it for you?

You are right.  It is rich.  Because neither can you post a single word of one.  You appear not to have one that passes the gospel test.  Only your subscription to a creed and coverage by Calvin's covenant.

PappaBear... do you have a valid Baptism? Can you geneologically trace your Baptism to John the Baptist?

admin, do you equate Baptism with regeneration?  Are they coequal?  Apparently you believe so, based on your own post above and your defense of modern versions that eliminate Acts 8:37. 

I have a valid believer's baptism AFTER my conversion experience at age 8.  Philip's challenge to the Ethiopian Eunuch in Acts 8:37 pretty well establishes the qualifying need of being born again BEFORE.  Do you understand the Baptist's definition of "Believer's Baptism" as opposed to your modern versions teaching of pedobaptism?

More importantly, do YOU have a valid conversion experience?  Have you ever been born again?  Somehow, I am beginning to have my doubts.  Perhaps you can share some details of a testimony, if indeed you have one.

PappaBear, just answer the OP 2 questions.

This is just beating around the proverbial Bush, avoiding the question.

 

[PappaBear]

PappaBear, just answer the OP 2 questions.

This is just beating around the proverbial Bush, avoiding the question.

I already have.  Please see reply #3 on this thread.  Nothing has changed to convince me differently of Ransom's spiritual condition, I am still busy (This is September with a lot of things going on), and I remain a believer in the Trinity.  Best person to debate anyone over the Trinity with the NIV remains someone who does NOT believe the Trinity.  I am not that one.  That was stated in the other thread, and has been repeated on this thread.

Thank you.

 

[bgwilkinson]

PappaBear, just answer the OP 2 questions.

This is just beating around the proverbial Bush, avoiding the question.

I already have.  Please see reply #3 on this thread.  Nothing has changed to convince me differently of Ransom's spiritual condition, I am still busy (This is September with a lot of things going on), and I remain a believer in the Trinity.  Best person to debate anyone over the Trinity with the NIV remains someone who does NOT believe the Trinity.  I am not that one.  That was stated in the other thread, and has been repeated on this thread.

Thank you.

Why will you not agree to number 2?

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?

Do you realize that the Orthodox Church does not use 1 Jn. 5:7 the comma to prove the Trinity?
They are the ones that have been the main user of the Greek NT since the time of Christ.
The proof in the  NIV is not hard to find.

Would you not agree that the Orthodox Church is Orthodox by definition?

PappaBear. All your accusations and changing the subject are just plain silly.

Why not agree to number 2?

KJVO talking points are so easy to spot.

It's always the same talking points.

 

[rsc2a]

Or let them argue the orthodox view of the Trinity without the Johannine Comma (i.e. with the NIV).  That is the ORTHODOX view of all three being the same substance, or consubstantial, not merely appeals in scripture where the 3 are referenced together, which can show the Trinity, but in non-classical modalism or adoptionism.  They should be able to confidently defend the Orthodox view of the Trinity with their modern corruptions... - PappaBear

Funny. Ransom posted a thread for PappaBear and him to precisely do this and PappaBear will not get near the issue.

 

[PappaBear]

Why not agree to number 2?

Because of the reasons I have already stated.  Especially because I believe the orthodox view of the Trinity, so of course it would be easy to prove it to me.  I would be easily convinced, and would be a disagreeable debate point for me to play devil's advocate and argue for a point I do not believe.  No doctrine as important as the Trinity is found only in a single passage.  But it is very much harder to prove it as consubstantial without the Comma, and attempting to debate someone who does NOT believe the orthodox view of the Trinity (from such as the Anasthasian Creed or Nicene Creed) would show that.  Just about any old JW would froth at the mouth to do so knowing that you are not using the KJV.

 

[rsc2a]

Just about any old JW would froth at the mouth to do so knowing that you are not using the KJV.

Odd. After a discussion about the Trinity using my trusty ESV (and they used their NWT), the JWs in my area seem to avoid my house when they knock on doors. It wasn't even difficult to have the discussion with them and prove my point.

And, I'm curious...can you tell me which translation the Mormon Church prefers? (I'm guessing not based on other comments you've made about the Mormons, JWs, and the KJV.)