Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[PappaBear]

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.

Sounds to me like you miss the stake.  Please, put away that matchbook.  ;D

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

REALLY?  Wait a minute!  Has the server changed hands, again?  Are you a different FSSL/admin from the one that locked a Baptist History thread and shut down discussion because it did not go your way?  Are you different from the other FSSL that supports those who verbally molest young women on his forum and then shuts down threads from others who are bold enough to state their uneasiness with it?  Must be different if you are truly committed to the concept of liberty of conscience.  Ahh, but that word "truly" is the rub, ain't it?  It is one thing to claim identity with Baptists in liberty of conscience, quite another to show it. 

So, go ahead.  Let's hear you proclaim your support of Michael Servetus' liberty of conscience and condemn the murdering, blood thirsty, apostate, lying devil Romanists who burnt him at the stake for his conscientious beliefs.  Or is that a bit of a quandry for you, an exception to your wholesale commitment to "liberty of conscience"?

 

[PappaBear]

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.

Still arguing Berkhof?  Let's see some NIV on the table how 'bout it? 

But I would also like to remind you of someone who once took a quote that applied to Roger Williams in a different time period within a different section of a book far removed and applied it to John Smyth.  Oh, my memory escapes me... <snap, snap> ... who was it that did that?  Can you help jar my memory?

 

[bgwilkinson]

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.

PB do you even read what is being written?

You are claiming to be a "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."

My point is that King James Murdered Anabaptist Edward Wightman in 1611. You would also have been burned at the stake by King James for your Baptist beliefs just as I would have been murdered by King James for my Baptist convictions if we had lived in England in 1611.

PB the invective caustic venom that comes from you is not serving you well.

I want to like you. We probably agree on most things. Why can't you be kind?

You aught to read the book of James and repent of the vileness of your words.

One that can control his tongue can control his whole body.

I'm not going to preach a sermon to you.

I hope you haven't forgotten to take your meds.

 

[ALAYMAN]

One that can control his tongue can control his whole body....

I hope you haven't forgotten to take your meds.

lol, irony, thy name is Wilkinson.

 

[PappaBear]

My point is that King James Murdered Anabaptist Edward Wightman in 1611.

Very interesting that you would make *THIS* reference on *THIS* thread.  Wightman was "unsound in his views of the Person of Christ" according to J. Newton Brown, "Memorials of Baptist Martyrs" p. 243.  The Wikipedia article on Wightman says this:

My point is that King James Murdered Anabaptist Edward Wightman in 1611. You would also have been burned at the stake by King James for your Baptist beliefs just as I would have been murdered by King James for my Baptist convictions if we had lived in England in 1611.

Now, in your post you identified with him.  Are you throwing in your lot with the Anti-Trinitarians? 

btw ... this man is a Baptist & Anti-Trinitarian.  I thought you guys believed those two did not co-exist?

Or was using him meant to be some sort of veiled threat against those you emulate James I in accusing those you plan to burn of Anti-Trinitarian heresy?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

Cite reliable sources not KJVOs.

This request has two problems.

1) genetic fallacy (obviously)
2) lose-lose argumentation

The way (2) works is if a source is cited that is not an AV defender, the contras go on and on about where he differs from our position.  A diversion.

If the source is a TR and/or AV defender, see (1).

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

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.

William Lane Craig, a problematic philosopher on the nature of God to begin with, yet on this topic is doing the same thing as Berkhof.

They both find the locus of the person in the Logos. Great! No Trinitarian denies that Jesus Christ is not a person of the Godhead. That is just classic, orthodox trinitarianism. They both advocate that. Your question, "which personhood" reveals the problem in this discussion.

Where the confusion comes is when they say He is not a human person. Their reaction is against those who want to divide the person of Christ into two persons -- divine and human. You cannot. The person of Christ is indivisible.

To complete William Lane Craig's orthodox, Trinitarian thought, this part of the article left out above needs to be included: "The rule that all orthodox Christology must follow was this: neither divide the person nor confuse the natures." Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/was-christ-a-divine-human-person#ixzz2grKs54yj

So your question, "which personhood," is contrary to orthodox Trinitarianism.

 

[FSSL]

1) I have not walked away.
2)  Why would I want to engage him?

I'm not going to be distracted by your comments and correct your issues above. Your undulations are dizzying! Your invective is discrediting.

If you are not walking away and yet do not want to engage him, then just sit right back and we will continue to do the heavy lifting in our defense of the Triune nature of God. It is better that way. Your eyes are glossing over.

 

[Ransom]

Answer the question

No, you don't get to change the subject.

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

An answer to that question is the only thing I am going to accept from you before moving on.

 

[PappaBear]

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.

Still arguing Berkhof?  Let's see some NIV on the table how 'bout it? 

But I would also like to remind you of someone who once took a quote that applied to Roger Williams in a different time period within a different section of a book far removed and applied it to John Smyth.  Oh, my memory escapes me... <snap, snap> ... who was it that did that?  Can you help jar my memory?

My memory is coming back a little.  I seem to recall it to be the same dishonest fellow that posted a half-hearted apology, thought better of it, and so deleted it shortly after.  Who was that poster?  Can you remember?  He seems to be the same guy that posts a lot of junk and then edits it an hour and half later, or locks threads and edits at will.

 

[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?

I strongly suspect that your answer, and my answer will be very similar. So....<shrug>

 

[PappaBear]

If you are not walking away and yet do not want to engage him, then just sit right back and we will continue to do the heavy lifting in our defense of the Triune nature of God. It is better that way. Your eyes are glossing over.

You carry that big an NIV that it is so heavy you can't lift it?  Maybe that explains why, in contradiction to the thread title, you and your champion who has "always been a Christian as far back as I can remember" haven't put forward a single verse, yet.  You know you cannot, don't ya?  An impossibility for you to show from the NIV, especially with one present that you accuse of blatant heresy but who can answer for himself and show the lie.  LOL.  The glaze you think you see in my eyes is from the deep wrinkles caused by my loud, long laughing all of you stooges.

And, you dodged again.  Just like your henchmen, when you dig the hole deep enough and are cornered with proof of your lies, you just duck and dodge all questions, pretend like it didn't happen and hope it will all go away soon.  Because if it doesn't, hey ... you've got the power!

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!

 

[PappaBear]

An answer to that question is the only thing I am going to accept from you before moving on.

You are right.  You don't move on with me until you experience the new birth.  I don't debate you, remember?

 

[FSSL]

Bumped because of distraction...

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.

William Lane Craig, a problematic philosopher on the nature of God to begin with, yet on this topic is doing the same thing as Berkhof.

They both find the locus of the person in the Logos. Great! No Trinitarian denies that Jesus Christ is not a person of the Godhead. That is just classic, orthodox trinitarianism. They both advocate that. Your question, "which personhood" reveals the problem in this discussion.

Where the confusion comes is when they say He is not a human person. Their reaction is against those who want to divide the person of Christ into two persons -- divine and human. You cannot. The person of Christ is indivisible.

To complete William Lane Craig's orthodox, Trinitarian thought, this part of the article left out above needs to be included: "The rule that all orthodox Christology must follow was this: neither divide the person nor confuse the natures." Read more: http://www.reasonablefaith.org/was-christ-a-divine-human-person#ixzz2grKs54yj

So your question, "which personhood," is contrary to orthodox Trinitarianism.

 

[PappaBear]

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

Mr committed to the concept of liberty of conscience, do you extend that same liberty to Michael Servetus and Edward Wightman?  If so, can you soundly excoriate those who burned those two good men in error for so doing?

 

[PappaBear]

William Lane Craig, a problematic philosopher on the nature of God to begin with, yet on this topic is doing the same thing as Berkhof.

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.

 

[PappaBear]

Let's bump this so the answer is not dodged.

My point is that King James Murdered Anabaptist Edward Wightman in 1611.

Very interesting that you would make *THIS* reference on *THIS* thread.  Wightman was "unsound in his views of the Person of Christ" according to J. Newton Brown, "Memorials of Baptist Martyrs" p. 243.  The Wikipedia article on Wightman says this:

My point is that King James Murdered Anabaptist Edward Wightman in 1611. You would also have been burned at the stake by King James for your Baptist beliefs just as I would have been murdered by King James for my Baptist convictions if we had lived in England in 1611.

Now, in your post you identified with him.  Are you throwing in your lot with the Anti-Trinitarians? 

btw ... this man is a Baptist & Anti-Trinitarian.  I thought you guys believed those two did not co-exist?

Or was using him meant to be some sort of veiled threat as you emulate James I in accusing those you plan to burn of Anti-Trinitarian heresy?

 

[Ransom]

I strongly suspect that your answer, and my answer will be very similar. So....<shrug>

We'll never know, unless you answer the question. Why are you defending a non-Trinitarian who says "Jesus is not a human person"?

 

[Ransom]

You are right.  You don't move on with me until you experience the new birth.  I don't debate you, remember?

I'm not asking you to debate. I'm asking you to answer FSSL's question. Why are you defending a non-Trinitarian who says "Jesus is not a human person"?

 

[Ransom]

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?

I also agreed to do that, if you answered two questions at the top of this thread . . . remember?

But by now we all know that avoiding straight answers is something you excel at.

Answer FSSL's question. Why are you defending a non-Trinitarian who says "Jesus is not a human person"?