Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

Ransom said:
Steven Avery said:
Anyway, I am very happy to agree that I do not accept the "Orthodox understanding of the Trinity", especially noting that the orthodox understanding insists that Jesus is not a human person.

What are you smoking, Avery?
Oh, wow!  That will leave a mark!  Such a superior debating technique, how can he possibly stand against such well-reasoned and scripturally founded arguments?  I can easily see why FSSL would support you as his champion.
 
It is ALWAYS my pleasure to watch PappaBear vehemently defend a nonTrinitarian because he is KJVO.

Now that PappaBear knows Avery calls himself a nonTrinitarian, his eyes are blurred and glassed over and unable to cope. PappaBear is no longer able to admit that he was wrong.
 
PappaBear said:
Oh, wow!  That will leave a mark!

Do you believe that orthodox Trinitarian doctrine says Jesus is not a human person?

If not, why are you defending someone who does?
 
Steven Avery said:

Since the word Trinity has a dozen conflicting meanings, and some are likely very close to my beliefs, I do not consider myself anti-Trinitarian.  Maybe non-creedal Trinitarian (e.g. Athanasian Creed) or non Orthodox Trinitarian (where it is wrong to call Jesus a human person).

Those are the words of the man himself.  But the godlike FSSL, claiming the power to define another man's position for him as he has done with many in the past, makes this false claim...

FSSL said:
Now that PappaBear knows Avery calls himself a nonTrinitarian

Thus the over-educated court jester of FFF(3) becomes the poster child evidence showing the prophetic truth of the 1955 book, "Why Johnny Can't Read."  Obviously (again), FSSL never developed that ability.
 
PappaBear said:
"Why Johnny Can't Read."  Obviously (again), FSSL never developed that ability.

Why are you defending a nonTrinitarian who says "Jesus is not a human person"?
 
FSSL said:
PappaBear said:
"Why Johnny Can't Read."  Obviously (again), FSSL never developed that ability.

Why are you defending a nonTrinitarian who says "Jesus is not a human person"?

Why do you defend a baby-baptizer who burns Baptists?
 
PappaBear said:
Why do you defend a baby-baptizer who burns Baptists?

Answer the question. Why are you defending a non-Trinitarian who says "Jesus is not a human person"?
 
Hi,

Ransom said:
Do you believe that orthodox Trinitarian doctrine says Jesus is not a human person?

What do you think, Scott?

If you are not sure, would you like a couple of quotes from the orthodox doctrinal writers?

FSSL said:
a nonTrinitarian who says "Jesus is not a human person"?
Ransom said:
a non-Trinitarian who says "Jesus is not a human person"?

The two of you are a bit confused. Above, I was contrasting a sensible position with what is considered the orthodox Trinitarian position, that Jesus is not a human person.  That was pretty clear, and Scott even originally "got it" above, and then lost it.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven
 
[quote author=Steven Avery]...what is considered the orthodox Trinitarian position, that Jesus is not a human person...[/quote]

You clearly have no idea what the orthodox position is regarding the personhood of Jesus. (And it wouldn't be a Trinitarian argument anyways.)
 
rsc2a said:
[quote author=Steven Avery]...what is considered the orthodox Trinitarian position, that Jesus is not a human person...

You clearly have no idea what the orthodox position is regarding the personhood of Jesus. (And it wouldn't be a Trinitarian argument anyways.)
[/quote]

Too bad PappaBear has walked away now... It would be interesting to see him actually engage Avery on this. KJVO visavis KJVO.
 
Steven Avery said:
What do you think, Scott?

If you are not sure, would you like a couple of quotes from the orthodox doctrinal writers?

I am sure. So no thank you.

The two of you are a bit confused.

You're the confused one. My question was addressed at PappaBear, not you. We already know what you believe, despite your less-than-heroic efforts to obfuscate it.
 
FSSL said:
Too bad PappaBear has walked away now... It would be interesting to see him actually engage Avery on this. KJVO visavis KJVO.

Fundies will separate from anyone at the drop of a hat, but when it comes to KJV-onlyism, they turn into squishy ecumenicists.

Defending the Authorized Translated-by-a-King James Super-Duper Blessed Virgin Holy Bible covers a multitude of sins and heresies.
 
PappaBear said:
FSSL said:
PappaBear said:
"Why Johnny Can't Read."  Obviously (again), FSSL never developed that ability.

Why are you defending a nonTrinitarian who says "Jesus is not a human person"?

Why do you defend a baby-baptizer who burns Baptists?

PB are you referring to King James of England who burned Anabaptist Edward Wightman.

Do you approve of the burning of Edward Wightman by King James?

Do you approve of killing people who differ with you on religious matters?

Murder for religious differences.

PB if you lived during James I reign you would probably be one of those burning at the stake.

I dare say he would be burning a lot of us if we lived back than.

See pages 108 and 109 of Crosby's history of English Baptists. Crosby was a member of the Church where John Gill was pastor.

This is an original source just a few decades removed from the vile deeds of King James I.

http://books.google.com/books?id=7tMsAAAAYAAJ&source=gbs_book_other_versions

Here is an email from one of his direct descendents who is a Baptist Mid-Missions missionary in Italy.

Yes I have GARBC roots.

This was distributed by Baptist Mid-Missions in 1998 on the anniversary of Mr. Wightman's murder.

Subj:    Saturday, April 11, 1612
Date:    98-04-11 12:04:33 EDT
From:    whitmanf@ats.it (Frederick Whitman)
To:    info@bmm.org (Baptist Mid-Missions)

Dear E-mail Prayer-warriors,

Today, Saturday April 11 is a very special one in my family history and I want to share it with you. It won't make the front pages of today's newspapers and I know that it is no reason to be proud because as Paul said, "God hath chosen the weak things of the world to confound the things which are mighty, and the base things of the world, and the things that are despised...to bring to naught things that are:  That no flesh should glory in his presence." I Corinthians 1:27-29

In 17th century England, there was a tailor by the name of Edward Wightman, of whom I am a direct descendent, who converted from the Anglican Church [Church of England] to faith in Christ and the Anabaptist Movement. The first of March 1611, he was brought before King James I [Head of the Church of England], not for an autographed copy of the original KJV Bible, but to defend his faith as an Anabaptist.

He was then arrested and condemned as a heretic for, among other things, being an Anabaptist. The death sentence was read in the Litchfield Cathedral on the 14th of December.  He was condemned to the stake, to be burned alive.

The day of his execution, "Market Square" was full of spectators as Wightman was brought from the prison and chained to the stake. While his religious murderers were gathering burning embers around his feet, the silence of such a solemn moment was pierced by a blood-curdling cry.

The condemned heretic was pleading mercy and pledging to recant, to deny his Anabaptist position, to deny his faith, if only they would get him out of the flames! He had previously stated very eloquently that the baptism of babies was an abominable act and that Baptism and the Lord's Table should not be practiced as done by the Anglican Church. However, in this terrible moment he was ready to deny it all.

The penitent heretic was pulled out of the flames, with those who freed him actually being burned by the flames too, and then led back to the prison. After two weeks Wightman was brought again before the court to sign his denial papers. This time, however, having spent two weeks in the anguished soul-searching of the Apostle Peter, he was ready to stand firm for his faith, refusing to sign the denial. The court secretary wrote that he actually was "more blasphemous and audacious" than before.

Wightman's condemnation was renewed and he was taken again to "Market Square", where he was again chained to the stake. This time there wasn't a hint of wanting to recant. Edward Wightman was burned alive on the Saturday between Good Friday and Easter, April 11, 1612.

The martyr left his widow, Frances, with four children, Priscilla, 15, John, 13, Anna, 3 and Samuel who was 8 months old. The family then moved to London and the next generation left for the American colonies.

Valentine Wightman started the first Baptist church in Connecticut as well as in New York. Valentine's son Timothy followed in his dad's footsteps pastoring churches in Connecticut, organizing the second Baptist Church in that colony. Valentine's grandson John Gano* [see note] pastored in the same state, organizing the Third Baptist Church of Groton.

May God grant each of us the courage to leave an inheritance like this to our children and the children of our children. Have a great Easter as you celebrate our Lord's Resurrection. There is reason to rejoice!

*************************************
Yours for Christ in Italy,
*************************************
Fred & Rachel Whitman
Jonathan, Jeremy, Joshua & Elizabeth
*************************************
Baptist Mid-Missions, Italy
C.P. 34
06132 San Sisto (PG)
Italy
*************************************
Ph./Fx. -- (075) 528-9287
E-Mail -- whitmanf@ats.it
*************************************


PB you have no room to point a finger at anyone. Pot meet Kettle. See the pic elsewhere on this forum.

Oh, don't forget to take your Prozac.
 
Yep! Scrape the top crust off a KJVO and you will reveal a liberal compromiser.

And, YES, PappaBear... Avery calls himself a non-Trinitarian. He did so above. Don't let adjectives get your mind all mushy.

Direct quote from FF.com: "Clearly I consider myself a "non-Trinitarian" <-- if you want to dig into the dung heap at .com
 
Hi,

rsc2a said:
[quote author=Steven Avery]...what is considered the orthodox Trinitarian position, that Jesus is not a human person...
You clearly have no idea what the orthodox position is regarding the personhood of Jesus. (And it wouldn't be a Trinitarian argument anyways.)
[/quote]

This is often discussed in detail on CARM, in some pretty decent threads (which vanish after awhile).

This surprised me a bit, so I then reviewed the orthodox Trinitarian literature and confirmed that orthodox Trinitarianism does not allow Jesus to be a human person.

Scott and FFSL were clearly saying, wrongly, that this is my view, see their posts.

From the point of view of orthodox Trinitarianism, if you say that Jesus is a human person, you are a heretic.  Depending on the complementary aspects of what you believe, you might be a Nestorian heretic, believing that there are two persons in Jesus.  If you do not believe that Jesus is a Divine Person, you will have a different heresy ascribed to your beliefs.

Most professed Trinitarians today would flunk out of an OQ (orthodoxy quotient).  James White, if I remember right, even has a utube about this flunkaroo aspect.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

rsc2a said:
[quote author=Steven Avery]...what is considered the orthodox Trinitarian position, that Jesus is not a human person...
You clearly have no idea what the orthodox position is regarding the personhood of Jesus. (And it wouldn't be a Trinitarian argument anyways.)

This is often discussed in detail on CARM, in some pretty decent threads (which vanish after awhile).

This surprised me a bit, so I then reviewed the orthodox Trinitarian literature and confirmed that orthodox Trinitarianism does not allow Jesus to be a human person.

Scott and FFSL were clearly saying, wrongly, that this is my view, see their posts.

From the point of view of orthodox Trinitarianism, if you say that Jesus is a human person, you are a heretic.  Depending on the complementary aspects of what you believe, you might be a Nestorian heretic, believing that there are two persons in Jesus.  If you do not believe that Jesus is a Divine Person, you will have a different heresy ascribed to your beliefs.

Most professed Trinitarians today would flunk out of an OQ (orthodoxy quotient).  James White, if I remember right, even has a utube about this flunkaroo aspect.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

[/quote]

I've asked for years to acknowledge or deny Pentecostal Oneness beliefs and you have always refused. Always. You ignore the question and continue to "obfuscate" (Thanks Ransom)

I also posted one of the creeds you claim denies the humanity of Jesus. I asked you to specifically reference where it denies the humanity of Jesus...... You refuse. You just keep right on muddying the discussion.
 
On FF.com Avery did say he has a "oneness pentecostal spiritual heritage with some modifications."
 
FSSL said:
On FF.com Avery did say he has a "oneness pentecostal spiritual heritage with some modifications."

I never remember reading that confession. I knew from the very first time I ever interacted with him, (an old yahoo group).....he was Pentecostal Oneness.
 
christundivided said:
I never remember reading that confession. I knew from the very first time I ever interacted with him, (an old yahoo group).....he was Pentecostal Oneness.

It is the silliest thing... Avery and PappaBear not willing to give clarity about their beliefs. The days of burning at the stake are gone.

I am wholly committed to the concept of liberty of conscience. It just makes discussion honest to have clarity of thought.
 
Steven Avery said:
Hi,

rsc2a said:
[quote author=Steven Avery]...what is considered the orthodox Trinitarian position, that Jesus is not a human person...
You clearly have no idea what the orthodox position is regarding the personhood of Jesus. (And it wouldn't be a Trinitarian argument anyways.)

This is often discussed in detail on CARM, in some pretty decent threads (which vanish after awhile).

This surprised me a bit, so I then reviewed the orthodox Trinitarian literature and confirmed that orthodox Trinitarianism does not allow Jesus to be a human person.

Scott and FFSL were clearly saying, wrongly, that this is my view, see their posts.

From the point of view of orthodox Trinitarianism, if you say that Jesus is a human person, you are a heretic. Depending on the complementary aspects of what you believe, you might be a Nestorian heretic, believing that there are two persons in Jesus.  If you do not believe that Jesus is a Divine Person, you will have a different heresy ascribed to your beliefs.[/quote]

"You clearly have no idea what the orthodox position is regarding the personhood of Jesus."
 
Back
Top