Teaching the Trinity from the NIV

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

When you said the following on post #65, it certainly left us with the impression that you believed it is wrong to call Jesus a human person. So, was the parenthetical remark a contrasting opinion?

Thanks, finally, an explanation.  Yet, after all the additional writing, it should have been clear.

Granted, you stopped the stuff, of not understanding what later became super-clear.  Scott continued.

Not all Trinitarians say it this way due to confusion.

All orthodox Trinitarians say that Jesus is not a human person, whether from confusion or false doctrine or whatever. One point of raising this issue is to examine precepts.

When you take Berkhof and Lane's quotes IN FULL, we see that they do not DIVIDE the persons. The late Robert Reymond has an excellent section demonstrating Jesus the human Person. We should capitalize "Person."

That is all fine, as your belief, and quite irrelevant to my posts and the point made.

What is your belief Steven? There is some confusion about it. Are you willing to tell us...
Is Jesus Christ a Person in the Godhead or only a human person? Is Jesus Christ a Person in the Godhead, distinct from Jesus a human person? Or, do you believe like the Trinitarians that Jesus is a Person in the Godhead and the same human Person (God-man) not to be divided.

Persons in the Godhead?  I do not see that concept in scripture, invalidating the questions.

Your question are circular to your own eisegesis, or interpretation if you prefer.

My view, we can stand directly on scripture, we do not need complicated ontological and Christological constructs, whether they are called Orthodox Trinitarian, or eclectic Trinitarian, or Oneness.

The key question, who is Jesus Christ?  Is he God manifest in the flesh?  Do we pray as in the manner of Stephen in Acts 7? What is the significance of his virgin birth, and being the Son of God? 

When you get into complex formulations outside scripture, I tend to pass.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I am trying to understand why we view Berkhof differently.

The issue is that Berkhof, Craig, Braaton and the other professing orthodox Trinitarianism will say that "Jesus is a human person" is heresy. 

You may:

(1) well agree with that, since you like their general persons constructs, follow their logic and say "amen" even to the conclusion.  Or you may-

(2) want to avoid the issue by constantly going around the horn about the connected issues, like why they come to that conclusion from Trinitarian presuppositions.  I say this is a diversion, for this conversation I am happily allowing you to have any presupps you think appropriate. Or you might

(3) disagree with them, saying that ortho Trin doctrine does allow Jesus to be a human person. They are simply mistaken in saying (some say, some imply) otherwise.  Or you might

(4) say that I am misunderstanding what they say, that they do not de facto make that assertion.  Or you might

(5) simply not know. A point to study.

I'm asking which of the five possibilities you take.

If you take (3) or (4), then we can will look at the three gentlemen above, and many others, some more.  To find out what is orthodox Trinitarianism, and  whether you can fit the mold.  Whether you want to fit the mold.

And I do believe that ultimately you will agree that I have properly represented orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.  (This came up on CARM  a number of times, and I read carefully all sides of the issue and looked up many primary sources, I really did not know about all this till about two years ago, as I am not often involved in such Christological discussions.)

And I would say that most professed Trinitarians in the churches today are far from orthodox Trinitarian doctrine.  On this point of modern church views, James White and I agree.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[FSSL]

The issue is that Berkhof, Craig, Braaton and the other professing orthodox Trinitarianism will say that "Jesus is a human person" is heresy.

There is a #6: Find it quite interesting that you like to provide only partial snippets without considering the explanation in the same paragraph. I found in both instances with Lane and Berkhof that you ignored their commitment to "no division of the persons." That is HARDLY extraneous. There are plenty of sound Trinitarian theologians and commentators that use the words "human person," "fully human person" and "divine-human person."

As much as you protest us making assumptions about what you believe, you leave me no recourse. I can accept the fact that you consider yourself to be a non-Trinitarian. Denying the Persons of the Trinity should make even the amateur Trinitarian take notice. On that note, I am satisfied to move on. It is your prerogative, like it is of PappaBear to refuse clarity about your own beliefs. I find it strange, but of no consequence.

Discussing the "eternal consciences" of the Trinity will simply fail out of frustration if we are not in agreement about the Persons of the Trinity.

 

[rsc2a]

PB and Avery -

Why do you refuse to answer the question I asked about your beliefs?

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

There is a #6: 

There is no secret as to why these various writers come to the conclusion they do ... it is all about "the divine person puts on a human nature...".  "you can't have two persons in Jesus",  an idea expressed in 10 distinct ways, yet basic orthodox Trinitarianism 

If I quote 10 writers saying that Jesus is not a human person, you will have likely 10 sections around those overall positions as part of the explanation.  Quite irrelevant to my point.

Maybe I mistakenly expected that long-term Trinitarians would know a bit about their own doctrinal positions and orthodoxy.  Even above you claim not to be an Amateur.

I did not realize I was expected to teach you Trinity 101 just to discuss the position of orthodox Trinitarianism that:

"Jesus is not a human person".

So you will not even take from 1-5, simply because you expected me to teach you Trinity doctrine fundamentals when asking about the question.

There are plenty of sound Trinitarian theologians and commentators that use the words "human person," "fully human person" ....

Ok, here is your answer, from the 5 you take #3.  Fair enough.

Who are they?  And let us see their quotes.
At least two or three would be helpful.

If they pass as orthodox Trinitarians with those terms you will be saying that orthodox Trinitarianism allows Jesus to be a human person.  And you are more sympathetic to those Trinitarians than the position of Berkhof, Craig, Braaton et al.

So, let us see the gentlemen you consider as orthodox Trinitarians who call Jesus a human person.

Discussing the "eternal consciences" of the Trinity will simply fail out of frustration if we are not in agreement about the Persons of the Trinity.

 
You miss the point of the question.  The goal is simply to understand which is your Trinitarian position.  This is somewhat akin to asking if you are a "Social Trinitarian", however far more specific in terms of what it means in terms of consciousnesses in God.

As I said, James White and Hank Hanegraaff take a "yes" to the question, but not necessarily clearly in written literature.  I first heard Hanegraaff emphasize this on his Bible Answer Man radio program.  James White originally felt that he did not want to answer the question, when asked some years ago. However in a recent public debate he took a yes position.  I could check Forgotten Trinity to see what he has there, if he touches on the question.

Many professed Trinitarians would give an unequivocal no the question.  I simply wanted to understand where you stand on the Trinitarian spectrum, and I would expect you would be interested in that as well. 

"Three distinct eternal consciousnesses" is a fine phrase-question to find out what Trinitarian position is actually being expressed, which is necessary because today "Trinity" is a very big tent.  I would say that it is even the crux of the matter.

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

As to the concern about not using "persons" as a term to describe God, you probably are aware that I am in a lot of company (professed Trinitarian and not) in that regard.  If you want to switch emphasis to that, the discussion would be a fine auxiliary.  Above I mentioned a bit about Calvin and Wesley, however we could discuss modern writers as well as earlier writers.

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

Incidentally, as an orthodox Trinitarian, non-heretic, if you are one, you are also not supposed to say that Jesus is "a man":

Grace and Truth: a study in the doctrine of the Incarnation (1975)
Anthony Tyrrell. Hanson, 
http://books.google.com/books?id=Z1IRAQAAIAAJ&q=%22but+that+he+did+not+become+a+man.%22&dq=%22but+that+he+did+not+become+a+man.%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=so9SUqu4E4fm9AS57YCIAg&ved=0CDkQ6AEwAg
"During my theological formation I was well instructed in the traditional account of the incarnation of God in Jesus Christ. I distinctly remember being told that the Word of God, when he assumed human nature, assumed impersonal humanity: that Jesus Christ did not possess a human personality; that God became man in Jesus Christ, but that he did not become a man." (p. 1)

Dale Tuggy
http://trinities.org/blog/archives/4805
The old tradition gets around that by saying, surprisingly that the incarnate Son is “man” but NOT a man. That is, the predicate “man”applies to him, because he’s in a hypostatic union with a complete “human nature” (body and rational soul) but he’s not a man, because a man is when that human nature is a self – but it isn’t one, because of that mysterious one-self-making-union it has with the eternal Son.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery

 

[rsc2a]

Orthodox view of the humanity and divinity of Jesus:

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ



Now why won't you answer the question I've asked you. I've found it to be generally true that two kinds of people will not answer direct questions when discussing their beliefs: those who are not fully convinced in their own mind and those who are being deliberately subversive in a less than honest way. And, frankly, I believe you are fully convinced about this.

 

[Ransom]

I did not realize I was expected to teach you Trinity 101 just to discuss the position of orthodox Trinitarianism that:

"Jesus is not a human person".

And yet we all know that it is orthodox Averyism to quote a sentence fragment out of context as though it was the last word on the subject.

Sorry, Avery, but we're not biting, mainly on account of we got brains.

 

[FSSL]

I did not realize I was expected to teach you Trinity 101 just to discuss the position of orthodox Trinitarianism that:

"Jesus is not a human person".

And yet we all know that it is orthodox Averyism to quote a sentence fragment out of context as though it was the last word on the subject.

Sorry, Avery, but we're not biting, mainly on account of we got brains.

One exception... Avery is schooling PappaBear. But it is not on what orthodox Trinitarianism is.

 

[FSSL]

Bumped on behalf of rsc2a. We really cannot move on in the discussion until we know what each person believes.

Orthodox view of the humanity and divinity of Jesus:

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ



Now why won't you answer the question I've asked you. I've found it to be generally true that two kinds of people will not answer direct questions when discussing their beliefs: those who are not fully convinced in their own mind and those who are being deliberately subversive in a less than honest way. And, frankly, I believe you are fully convinced about this.

Here is where I am at on this issue. BTW: I am teaching this to my daughters for the third time in their lives: http://www.freesundayschoollessons.org/systematic-theology/lesson-13-the-person-of-christ-biblical-foundations-for-living/

I have a good amount of illustration to use for application tonight!

 

[prophet]

Orthodox view of the humanity and divinity of Jesus:

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ



Now why won't you answer the question I've asked you. I've found it to be generally true that two kinds of people will not answer direct questions when discussing their beliefs: those who are not fully convinced in their own mind and those who are being deliberately subversive in a less than honest way. And, frankly, I believe you are fully convinced about this.

Don't  forget category #3...Those who won't  be bullied.

Anishinabe

 

[rsc2a]

Now why won't you answer the question I've asked you. I've found it to be generally true that two kinds of people will not answer direct questions when discussing their beliefs: those who are not fully convinced in their own mind and those who are being deliberately subversive in a less than honest way. And, frankly, I believe you are fully convinced about this.

Don't  forget category #3...Those who won't  be bullied.

Nope...I haven't found a person yet who refused to state their beliefs when asked because of 'bullying', largely because simply asking someone their beliefs isn't bullying. It might become bullying if the one asking is insistent, but they would only need to be insistent if #1 or #2 were first true.

 

[FSSL]

Especially when he asked us and we answered.
Are we not allowed to ask him without being charged with being called bullies?
A defense of God's nature is going on.

 

[Ransom]

Don't  forget category #3...Those who won't  be bullied.

Nobody's being bullied here, although Avery and PappaBear are refusing to give straight answers to questions, while demanding that everyone else jump through their hoops.

 

[T-Bone]

Okay I need some clarification...Did he say that those who hold the orthodox view of the Trinity deny the humanity of Jesus?

 

[christundivided]

Okay I need some clarification...Did he say that those who hold the orthodox view of the Trinity deny the humanity of Jesus?

Yes. That is what he says. Its common for Oneness Pentecostal followers to try and disguise their heresy by claiming they truly embrace the humanity of Christ.

Many people call them the "Jesus Only" crowd. They tend to only baptism in the name of Jesus alone.

 

[T-Bone]

Okay I need some clarification...Did he say that those who hold the orthodox view of the Trinity deny the humanity of Jesus?

Yes. That is what he says. Its common for Oneness Pentecostal followers to try and disguise their heresy by claiming they truly embrace the humanity of Christ.

Many people call them the "Jesus Only" crowd. They tend to only baptism in the name of Jesus alone.

Well the claim the Trinitarians deny the humanity of Christ is a new one to me....and to claim such puts one in the category of the asinine!

 

[FSSL]

Well the claim the Trinitarians deny the humanity of Christ is a new one to me....and to claim such puts one in the category of the asinine!

You will find snippets, in Trinitarian theologies, that say Jesus is "not a human person." The reason some Trinitarians use that confusing language is that they are being careful so that the humanity of Jesus is not given prominence over the divine person. THAT would be an error of dividing the substance and confusing the persons.

Steven snipped the quotes from their paragraphs, stripping essential information that must attend the statements.

I have plenty of solid Trinitarian theologies, commentaries and dictionaries that use the phrases "fully human," "Divine-human person" and "human person."

As Steven stated clearly above, he does not believe that the Godhead has Persons. So, he must, logically locate the person of Jesus in the human.

This is CLASSIC oneness theology.

As ALL Trinitarians argue, "not dividing the substance nor confusing the persons."

 

[FSSL]

Steven, you want to know our positions and we have been very compliant and gave you what we believe. The nature of God is a joy to discuss and defend! We are more than willing to put our individual thoughts on the Trinity for everyone to know.

But, you continue to ask us what we believe (and tell us what we must believe), yet you will not answer our simple questions. Rsc2a has provided a great, clear statement on the orthodox view of the humanity and divinity of Jesus. I am bumping his question for you:

Furthermore it is necessary to everlasting salvation; that he also believe faithfully the Incarnation of our Lord Jesus Christ. For the right Faith is, that we believe and confess; that our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, is God and Man; God, of the Essence of the Father; begotten before the worlds; and Man, of the Essence of his Mother, born in the world. Perfect God; and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and human flesh subsisting. Equal to the Father, as touching his Godhead; and inferior to the Father as touching his Manhood. Who although he is God and Man; yet he is not two, but one Christ. One; not by conversion of the Godhead into flesh; but by assumption of the Manhood by God. One altogether; not by confusion of Essence; but by unity of Person. For as the reasonable soul and flesh is one man; so God and Man is one Christ



Now why won't you answer the question I've asked you. I've found it to be generally true that two kinds of people will not answer direct questions when discussing their beliefs: those who are not fully convinced in their own mind and those who are being deliberately subversive in a less than honest way. And, frankly, I believe you are fully convinced about this.

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?


Here is an opportunity ANY believer in Christ would jump to answer! In fact, I am going over this with my daughters again tonight!

If you don't want to, just be honest and say, "I don't wanna!"

 

[Ransom]

Side issue: Apropos to some of the discussion here, and also perhaps of benefit to FFFers who don't have a decent systematic in their library, here's a free ebook of Berkhof's Systematic Theology.

Go ahead and search it on "human person," and see just how far off-base Avery the Word Merchant actually is.

 

[Steven Avery]

Hi,

I asked and others have. What is your position on the Trinity?

And I don't see "the Trinity" as a helpful term, since it is used in a dozen conflicting ways, from Karl Barth and an economic Trinity to the Social Trinitarians who veer towards trietheism, and many sliding scale alternatives and side-steps in between. 

The term itself I find unhelpful.  John Wesley specifically said that the term should not be insisted upon, and his reasoning in that regard is sound.

If the essence of "the Trinity" being asked about is that God exists in three distinct, eternal consciousnesses, as it is for some, then I am non-Trinitarian.

If the essence of the "the Trinity" being asked about is the recognition of distinction between the Father, the Son and the Holy Spirit, as it is for some, then I can be considered a Trinitarian.

Yours in Jesus,
Steven Avery