Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Ransom]

From the point of view of orthodox Trinitarianism, if you say that Jesus is a human person, you are a heretic.

OK, Avery, stop obfuscating. Do you believe that the above sentence, taken at face value, is true?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I am wholly committed to the concept of liberty of conscience. It just makes discussion honest to have clarity of thought.

Sounds good. 

For clarity of thought - are you one of those heretics who believes that Jesus is a human person?

Here is one of many examples of this, from Louis Berkhof (1873-1957), which is well-known and was shown you on FFF:

Summary of Christian Doctrine - Louis Berkhof 
b. The two natures united in one Person. Christ has a human nature, but He is not a human person. The Person of the Mediator is the unchangeable Son of God. In the incarnation He did not change into a human person; neither did He adopt a human person. He simply assumed, in addition to His divine nature, a human nature, which did not develop into an independent personality, but became personal in the Person of the Son of God. - Louis Berkhof, Summary of Christian Doctrine (1939)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

...are you one of those heretics who believes that Jesus is a human person?

Absolutely. 100% human with 100% personhood.
I am an orthodox Trinitarian.

Now... can you explain what you mean by "openness heritage with some modifications."

 

[FSSL]

I do not remember seeing the Berkhof quote...

I disagree with his introductory sentence. He muddles the issue and writes in the same paragraph which you snipped...

"...After this assumption of human nature the Person of the Mediator is not only divine but divine-human; He is the God-man, possessing all the essential qualities of both the human and the divine nature. He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a human and a divine will."

Nature, human consciousness, human will are all inseparable from personhood.

 

[Ransom]

Absolutely. 100% human with 100% personhood.
I am an orthodox Trinitarian.

I understand what Berkhof means. I wonder if AV-ery understands what Berkhof means.

 

[FSSL]

I understand what Berkhof means. I wonder if AV-ery understands what Berkhof means.

I wonder why he snipped the full paragraph.

 

[bgwilkinson]

...are you one of those heretics who believes that Jesus is a human person?

Absolutely. 100% human with 100% personhood.
I am an orthodox Trinitarian.

Now... can you explain what you mean by "openness heritage with some modifications."

If Jesus be not 100% human we have no Savior. He must be 100% human as we are yet without sin.

God the Father gave Him a human body as our perfect sacrifice for sin once for all time on the cross.

Hebrews is rather explicit on this matter.

100% deity 100% human . The God Man. Emmanuel, God with us.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

If Jesus be not 100% human we have no Savior.

Agreed. The humanity of Jesus is essential to his being our Saviour.

And I do believe that the virgin birth gave him the humanity through Mary's direct contribution. And sinlessness comes through the Holy Spirit being his father, bypassing the transmission of the sin nature through the male.  Arthur Custance is a good writer on this point, CARM's Matt Slick is good here on an accessible popular level.

Now, returning to Jesus as a human person:

Louis Berkhof and many others however insist that as orthodox Trinitarians, you must agree that Jesus is not a human person. 

(You can say that he put on a human nature, but Jesus is not a human person.)

Is that your view?

Note: this is not something I came up with, this is one sine qua non of Trinitarian orthodoxy insisted upon by the doctrinal folks.  I am not saying it is Bible, or sensible, but if you do not agree, (that Jesus is not a human person), you flunk the Trinitarian orthodoxy test.

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

And to understand your version a bit better:

Would you be so kind as to tell me if you think that God exists in three distinct eternal consciousnesses?

(I'm not looking for a "right" or "wrong" answer here, while my answer is simply "no", I believe that this question helps highlight which Trinitarian belief is being expressed. Note the simplicity of the question.  From various discussions, if you follow in the understandings of Hank Hanegraaff or James White, the answer should be "yes".  However, they might not be your doctrinal wonderkinds)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

Before I answer the eternal consciousness issue, please tell me why you snipped the full paragraph.

The fact that Berkhof also says, "...possessing all the essential qualities of both the human and the divine nature. He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a human and a divine will."

This clearly speaks to personhood even when he denies the term "person." (which is a grave error)

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Simply because my question is whether you can call Jesus a human person, and that aspect, while fine to include and discuss, is peripheral.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

Hi, Simply because my question is whether you can call Jesus a human person, and that aspect, while fine to include and discuss, is peripheral. Yours in Jesus, Steven

The first sentence of Berkhof is certainly wrong IF isolated from the entire paragraph. The rest of the paragraph expanded what he meant, therefore, it is not peripheral.

Christ never makes the distinction between divine person and human. That appears to be the emphasis that Berkhof makes SINCE he DOES speak to Jesus as "possessing all the essential qualities of both the human and the divine nature. He has both a divine and a human consciousness, as well as a human and a divine will."

The word "all" is key.

Compare this with what Berkhof says in his theology: "The personal subsistence of the Son must be maintained over against all Modalists, who in one way or another deny the personal distinctions in the Godhead... in distinction from philosophy, the Bible represents the Logos as personal and identifies Him with the Son of God.

Though some may state it differently, Trinitarian theologians NEVER deny the 100% personhood of Christ.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

The first sentence of Berkhof is certainly wrong IF isolated from the entire paragraph. ...Christ never makes the distinction between divine person and human. That appears to be the emphasis that Berkhof makes

Berkhof is one of many orthodox Trinitarian writers who insists that you must make this distinction, and you can not call Jesus a human person, else you are a heretic.

Are all the orthodox Trinitarian writers wrong?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[FSSL]

No. You are wrong for misrepresenting Berkhof's position. You snipped the first part of a paragraph and now avoid even dealing with his theology.

Berkhof CLEARLY teaches the personhood of Christ.

 

[Ransom]

Berkhof is one of many orthodox Trinitarian writers who insists that you must make this distinction, and you can not call Jesus a human person, else you are a heretic.

Avery, just tell the truth and admit that you took the sentence out of context.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You are answering a different quesiton. I did not ask if Berkhof teaches "the personhood of Christ". The question is which personhood, and I asked if you are forbidden to consider him a human person.

He is a divine person who has assumed a human nature in addition to the divine nature that he already had. In virtue of having a complete human nature as well as a divine nature Christ is both God and man, human and divine. But he is not a human person. He is a divine person who possesses a human nature as well as a divine nature. - William Lane Craig

Do you agree with Craig and Berkhof?  Are they both wrong in their insistence that Jesus is not a human person?  And that is the context of my question.

(Granted, Craig is the gentleman who compares the Trinity to Cerberus, however that is more an issue in the "three eternal consciousness" part of the discussion than here, or if we are discussing Michael Servetus.)

Yours in Jesus,
Steven 

 

[PappaBear]

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"?

Answer the question.  Why do you defend a baby baptizer who burns Baptists?

 

[PappaBear]

Too bad PappaBear has walked away now... It would be interesting to see him actually engage Avery on this. KJVO visavis KJVO.

1) I have not walked away.  You lie, again.  Don't you tire of that practice?  Oh, wait ... I think the Bible already answers that for me about you.

2)  Why would I want to engage him?  You see, I am not the one with the problem of claiming to believe in a specific Roman Catholic view and yet denying most scriptural references that would support it.  You see, to me the Bible is the rule of faith and practice and it makes the CHRISTHOOD of Jesus the dividing line.  From what I have seen so far, Mr. Avery supports His Christhood. 

I am also the one who originally said that you guys would be best taking him on with your NIV's over the Trinity issue, remember?  Why now do you want *me* to do *your* job for you?  He is here, you claim him to be nonTrinitarian, and now here is your opportunity.  Break out those NIV's and start assailing his so-called heresy with scripture.  So far, I have not seen a single Bible passage from either of you stooges, only vague references to "orthodox doctrine."  As an observer, he so far has scored points and you guys are only complaining. 

I do not expect you will have any scriptures to counter his arguments with.  What would you use?  Acts 8:37 or 1John 5:7,8?  Or your Catholic view of equating certain "fathers" like Berkhof as equal to the Holy Writ you so often condemn and mock?  In process of time, you will again lose your temper, and lacking anything to answer, you will lock threads, edit posts afterwards, and smugly declare victory because your opponents "walked away." 

But *IF* you guys are going to get to the scriptures at all on the subject, please get to it.  That's the part I am anxious to see.  Where will you begin?  John 10, perhaps?  1Cor 12?

 

[bgwilkinson]

PB. Did you forget to take your meds? Your posts are delusional mystical contortions based on KJVO dogma.

Cite reliable sources not KJVOs.

Why are you so mean and surly. Is someone beating your teddy bear?

I want to like you, but you make it near impossible. I do love you, I just don't trust you.

 

[PappaBear]

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.

No sir, I am a member of that ancient sect called today "Baptists."  We believe in the liberty of Conscience, unlike you Calvi-baal worshippers.  As Baptists, Anabaptists, Waldensians and such like, we are the ones who your Papist Universalists that you desire to reform and from whom you proudly claim descent routinely murdered at the stake.  Like when Calvin washed his hands in the blood of Michael Servetus and burnt him for opposing infant baptism.  The man you guys all bow and pray to.  It is not I that has started arguments with such ribald invective and ad hominem.  Check the record -- I have yet to give a "smite" to a single person.  The proof is in the pudding.  If you were cold, I would extend to your loathsome breed coals of fire that you may have warmth.  But I would certainly look for the nearest exit when any of you begin to play with your matches.

 

[PappaBear]

And, YES, PappaBear... Avery calls himself a non-Trinitarian. He did so above.

Despite the best efforts at reforming you, you continue to display your lack of integrity.  So, pretend I am dense, can't read, don't know, not out of school, whatever and directly quote Mr. Avery anywhere above where he claimed "I call myself a non-Trinitarian."  I see where he declares himself to be a Trinitarian twice in one post, just not the kind you approve of, apostate Calvi-baal worshipper.

But seeing since you claim that he claims to be a non-Trinitarian, now is your opportunity.  Quick!  Grab that NIV and convert him.  Quit beating around the bush.  What NIV scriptures do you have, if any, to support YOUR definition of ORTHODOX TRINITARIANISM?  In other words, quit attempting to falsely define his position, and scripturally argue your own, *if* you have one, and *if* you have any Bible passages to directly support such a position in opposition to his own.

I wait with bated breath... Can you do it?  Is there anything in the NIV that absolutely tee-totally proves such as Avery wrong?  Look up at this thread title and take the challenge.  Use only the NIV, not Berkhof or the Institutes or Augustine or your Church Fathers heritage, only the NIV.  Prove this man wrong.  The entire FFF coliseum of Modern Versionists are cheering you on, waiting to see how easily it is done, thirsty to see you draw the blood of this Baptist Bible believing heretic in our midst.  Have at at!  Toro!  Toro!  Toro!