Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[PappaBear]

just sit right back and we will continue to do the heavy lifting in our defense of the Triune nature of God.

I got to thinking about this post of yours.  Then I remembered that you went to that second rate college for the developmentally disabled and your reading comprehension challenges.  Perhaps you honestly think that you are only bound to defend the Trinitarian doctrine and are attempting to do so exclusively with historical writers of doctrine.  So, here, let me help you.

See up there where it tells you your location on the forum?  It looks like this:
Fighting Fundamental Forums > Doctrinal Forums > Bible Versions

Now, read the very last.  Sound it out -- use your phonics.  This is the Bible Versions forum, where you are NOT doing the heavy lifting in defense of the Triune nature of God.  Now look at the thread title.  The last 3 letters is not a word, but an acronym (I know, but go ask mom or something).  NIV isn't meant to be pronounced, it is 3 letters that stand for New International Version, and is a different Bible version for this new age.  What you are expected to do here in this forum and on this thread is heavy lifting of defending Trinitarian doctrine IN THAT VERSION.  And yes, that task does so far appear to be one too heavy for you to accomplish.  Now, in order to do that, you can check with your mentor Ransom, but I think somewhere along the line you should break out a copy of the NIV.  Stop waving it and start using it.

-Or- ... You can admit to you guys' complete inability to do such by either moving this thread to a different doctrinal forum such as Aplogetics or Interpretation, or by continuing to avoid the use of the NIV or any version, thereby showing the complete lack of biblical foundation for whatever Trinitarian doctrine you claim to hold.

 

[Ransom]

Now, in order to do that, you can check with your mentor Ransom

Speaking of "rent-free," FSSL, I'm pretty sure you're not paying me enough for this.

 

[PappaBear]

Speaking of "rent-free," FSSL, I'm pretty sure you're not paying me enough for this.

In conclusion, as shown above, we see that the NIV has so weakened the doctrine of the Son of God as to render it indefensible of the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. 
Thanks to all who participated.  Is there another version you want to try this with?

 

[PappaBear]

We know you want this to end, but that is not in your control.

LOL!  *I* want it to end?  You can't pay Ransom enough to attempt it, and lack the power to open your own NIV.  The only defense you two stooges can come up with is the occasional nyuk nyuk nyuk.

 

[Ransom]

In conclusion, as shown above, we see that the NIV has so weakened the doctrine of the Son of God as to render it indefensible of the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity.

In conclusion, PappaBear would have been proven wrong had he simply answered two questions at the beginning of the thread.

The question remains whether he dodged 'em because a) he knew that he would be easily proven wrong; or b) supplying an orthodox definition of the Trinity would put him in, shall we say, a compromised position with his new BFF, the modalist Avery.

 

[Ransom]

You can't pay Ransom enough to attempt it,

Or c) given how he has to keep dropping my name in a feeble attempt to discredit me, he really really fears what I might have said if he'd given a straight answer.

Run away, MammaBear, run away!

LOL! KJV-onlyists are so ineffective.

 

[PappaBear]

Just a reminder of the clear result.

Speaking of "rent-free," FSSL, I'm pretty sure you're not paying me enough for this.

In conclusion, as shown above, we see that the NIV has so weakened the doctrine of the Son of God as to render it indefensible of the Orthodox doctrine of the Trinity. 
Thanks to all who participated.  Is there another version you want to try this with?

 

[rsc2a]

PB -

What is your understanding of orthodox Trinitarian belief?

 

[Steven Avery]

William Lane Craig ... is doing the same thing as Berkhof. Where the confusion comes is when they say He is not a human person.

So you agree with those two, and many others,  in saying that Jesus is not a human person?

(That any human "personhood" of Jesus is not because he is a human person.)

Are we understanding your particular Trinitarian exposition properly?

Remember, if you say that Jesus is a human person, they will consider you a heretic. If it is your position I would like you to say unambiguously that Jesus Christ is not a human person.  You can add many qualifiers, no problemo.

===========

And if you can get around to "three distinct eternal consciousnesses" as you indicated you would, that would be helpful.

===========

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

If this is a reference to my beliefs, this is the very same distortion made by Scott and FSSL earlier, since "Jesus is not a human person", is the belief I am quoting from Berkhof, Craig and others. And they are considered orthodox Trinitarians.

"Jesus is not a human person"

is the orthodox Trinitarian belief.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[Ransom]

"Jesus is not a human person"

is the orthodox Trinitarian belief.

You have already been shown other wise, and you continue to say this.

Therefore, you are a liar.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

You have already been shown other wise, and you continue to say this.

Now we have Scott contra Berkhof, Craig and Braaten.  More can be posted, time permitting.  Esepcially if there are any sensible responses.

Being accused of being a liar based on Scott's own lack of understanding is an honor I do not mind receiving, nor is it at all surprising.

Even more so when Scott's purpose is to shill for the brazen liar, cud. (Who has the chutzpah to lie about what I knew in past years.)

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

And I will note that I rarely call any contras liars, not even posters like Scott or FSSL, probably never for those two, despite many twistings and ultra-problematic claims (including Scott above writing as if "Jesus is not a human person" is my doctrinal view).  The situation with cud is a little different, because he is so brazen and unconcerned when he lies outright.

Here is cud's approach:

I reserve the right to fabricate, to lie outright, against an AV defender, and they have to prove to me, to my satisfaction, the absolute negation of my lie before I may reluctantly  stop lying

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Ransom]

Now we have Scott contra Berkhof, Craig and Braaten.

FSSL showed that you misconstrued Berkhof, Avery.

Even so, I'd rather be right, than on the bandwagon.

 

[PappaBear]

Bumped because of distraction...are we done now?

Distracted from what?  Teaching the Trinity from Berkhof?  So, you admit you have no Bible foundation for your particular Christological views, not even from your new age bible versions?

 

[PappaBear]

Feel free to start your own thread. Let those of us who are willing to defend the Trinity and not make excuses, discuss this amicably without distraction.

My own thread?  On what?  Teaching the Trinity from the NIV?  Oh!  That's right!!  I forgot again about your reading challenges, having attended that slipshod college for low rent theologians.

This thread is about teaching the trinity from the NIV.  Where's your NIV?  This room is about Bible versions, not apologetics or hermeneutics.  So how are you adapting your discussion of Berkhof to modern versions?

See up there where it tells you your location on the forum?  It looks like this:
Fighting Fundamental Forums > Doctrinal Forums > Bible Versions

Now, read the very last.  Sound it out -- use your phonics.  This is the Bible Versions forum, where you are NOT doing the heavy lifting in defense of the Triune nature of God.  Now look at the thread title.  The last 3 letters is not a word, but an acronym (I know, but go ask mom or something).  NIV isn't meant to be pronounced, it is 3 letters that stand for New International Version, and is a different Bible version for this new age.  What you are expected to do here in this forum and on this thread is heavy lifting of defending Trinitarian doctrine IN THAT VERSION.  And yes, that task does so far appear to be one too heavy for you to accomplish.  Now, in order to do that, you can check with your mentor Ransom, but I think somewhere along the line you should break out a copy of the NIV.  Stop waving it and start using it.

-Or- ... You can admit to you guys' complete inability to do such by either moving this thread to a different doctrinal forum such as Aplogetics or Interpretation, or by continuing to avoid the use of the NIV or any version, thereby showing the complete lack of biblical foundation for whatever Trinitarian doctrine you claim to hold.

 

[PappaBear]

Please no more distractions. Trolling is against forum rules.

I'm not trolling, doc.  I was here first, I suggested that you guys take Mr. Avery on with your NIV's, and what I post applies to both this Bible versions forum and this thread regarding the NIV.  If anyone is trolling, it is you.  But you have set up the punt, and your lack of ability to hold your temper will release the trigger. 

Nope, you are the same FSSL as always.  You just prove me to be a prophet.

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. 

 

[rsc2a]

PB -

What is your understanding of orthodox Trinitarian belief?

*bump*

(I would also add your understanding of the nature of Christ concerning His humanity and His deity.)

 

[rsc2a]

[quote author=admin]You have been asked a number of times by various people to not distract with your vitriol, scofging and rude remarks.[/quote]

To be fair, if everyone who commonly posted vitriol, scoffing and rude remarks were stopped, about a third of the people on these boards wouldn't be able to comment.

 

[PappaBear]

Please no more distractions. Excessive Trolling is against forum rules. You have been asked a number of times by various people to not distract with your vitriol, scofging and rude remarks.

Pointing out your lack of use of the NIV in a thread titled "Teaching the Trinity from the NIV" is NOT a distraction, but bringing the discussion back to its point.

Yes, you have the power, admin.  But you lack the ethical ability to use it rightly.  Nuke away.  It is only an admission of your inability to restrain your temper or keep a thread in proper context.  You think you are defending Trinitarianism?  The person you have lied about making claims he is nonTrinitarian is making a monkey out of you and showing himself much more scripturally supported and knowledgable than you thugs and henchmen who have portrayed his beliefs differently than what they are.  It is the age old demonstration against ye ole straw man.

And now ... I know it, you know it, and the world knows it.  You cannot handle the truth, and so must have a website of your own where, with your control issues, you must put down all disagreement.  Oh, admin-sama ...

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

FSSL showed that you misconstrued Berkhof, Avery.

Nonsense.  Nothing contradicted the basic point made. FSSL tried unsucessfully to move goal posts, which added interesting but extraneous material.  I never had any problem with wider concepts, but my focus was clear and simple:

Berkhof, Craig, Braaton and numerous others make it 100% clear that as an orthodox Trinitarian, if you really are one, you can not consider Jesus a human person.

Multiple times you pretended that this is my belief, which would be a lie except I think you were simply being obtuse or tricky.

Please stop playing games.

Why not tell us if you consider Jesus a human person?

Why not answer the question about three distinct eternal consciousnesses?

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[rsc2a]

Avery -

Same question as asked of PB. Can you tell us what your belief is regarding the Triune nature of God and your understanding of Jesus in regards to His humanity and divinity?