An Observation

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: An Observation

Post by TheEditor » Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:32 am

Hi Singalphile,

The post was intended to be vague. Westcott was commenting on the general tend of people to be fanatical when they focus on one idea or in some cases a "gimmicky" view. Take for instance the myriad of sects that have built up over these past many centuries. Don't all of them begin with emphasis on some notion or idea that other churches perhaps have failed to notice? Sometimes the idea may be legitimate, sometimes it is a contrivance. Take as an example the person who says believers need to be immersed (maybe even three times) in order to be saved. They highlight one teaching, and sacrifice all else on this particular creedal alter. You may be right that certain types of people tend to lean this way. But I think part of it is codifying and writing down creedal statements. It puts me in mind of another quote in the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin as quoted by Neil Postman:

"In the Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, there appears a remarkable quotation attributed to Michael Welfare, one of the founders of a religious sect known as the Dunkers and a longtime acquaintance of Franklin. The statement had its origins in Welfare's complaint to Franklin that zealots of other religious persuasions were spreading lies about the Dunkers, accusing them of abominable principles to which, in fact, they were utter strangers. Franklin suggested that such abuse might be diminished if the Dunkers published the articles of their belief and the rules of their discipline. Welfare replied that this course of action had been discussed among his co-religionists but had been rejected. He then explained their reasoning in the following words:

"When we were first drawn together as a society, it had pleased God to enlighten our minds so far as to see that some doctrines, which we once esteemed truths, were errors, and that others, which we had esteemed errors, were real truths. From time to time He has been pleased to afford us farther light, and our principles have been improving, and our errors diminishing. Now we are not sure that we are arrived at the end of this progression, and at the perfection of spiritual or theological knowledge; and we fear that, if we should once print our confession of faith, we should feel ourselves as if bound and confined by it, and perhaps be unwilling to receive further improvement, and our successors still more so, as conceiving what we their elders and founders had done, to be something sacred, never to be departed from."

Franklin describes this sentiment as a singular instance in the history of mankind of modesty in a sect. . . . The Dunkers came close here to formulating a commandment about religious discourse: Thou shalt not write down thy principles, still less print them, lest thou shall be entrapped by them for all time.

(Amusing Ourselves to Death, by Neil Postman; pp. 30, 31.)

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

dizerner

Re: An Observation

Post by dizerner » Sun Mar 15, 2015 1:34 am

TheEditor wrote:
the Bible is saturated with it


In the eye of the beholder....

Regards, Brenden.
All I'm saying is, whether or not you agree with it, it can't be called "the teaching of one part only, taken without any regard to its relative position."

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: An Observation

Post by TheEditor » Sun Mar 15, 2015 2:54 am

I can statistically show that God is referenced as three main persons who interact and have their own personal pronouns, and whose names are used hundreds of times.


And, I and many other non-trinitarians can show hundreds of verses that show the opposite. Unfortunately, those verses are general explained away with some kind of logic(?) that does violence to the manifest meaning of words.

I understand you can find other explanations for that, but I don't think it's fair in this case to say that those particular facts are only in the "eye of the beholder" as if I were somehow inventing something that wasn't there.


I never said that you or anyone else was "inventing something that was not there". Wherever did you get that idea? I merely am cognizant of the known fact that there is more than one way to skin a cat.

It's not a matter of it being there or not, but how it is interpreted, in other words. If I can say, this doctrine has 100 main verses to a support it, and 1000 lesser verses that would fit well with it, from all over the Bible, is that "the teaching of one part only, taken without any regard to its relative position"? No, of course not.


I didn't say that the trinity did not take other verses into account. What I am saying is (and frankly, the trinity is not the only cherished dogma that can be rigidly clung to) once these doctrines are written down; formalized; standardized, pasteurized, homogenized and whateverized, they become entrenched beliefs that for some reason people rally around and feel threatened when they perceive the doctrine is "under attack". I have yet to get sound answers to literally dozens of issues I have raised in that very lengthy thread. There has been obfuscation, ignoring, and a repeated hammering on verses that have little to do with this doctrine. But no (to my mind) satisfactory answers.

A person cannot expect to be taken seriously, when they insist that their explanation of Jesus' words "the Father is greater than I" is that "he was speaking from his standpoint as a human", and then turn around and say, "But when Jesus was raised and glorified, and he called his Father "his God", he didn't really mean it that way", or "Begotten, doesn't really mean what it sounds like it means" Really?! Is this what theology has reduced us to?

And another thing, no one has yet to tell me how a mental acknowledgement of this dogma makes them emulate Christ one whit better than the Christian that doesn't acknowledge this dogma. All I hear is that for some reason, this teaching is a touchstone of orthodoxy.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

dizerner

Re: An Observation

Post by dizerner » Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:16 am

Thanks for the reply TheEditor. I had edited my reply trying to make it sound less combative, but I'm still glad you responded.

First I'd like to ask, do you really think your quote applies to the doctrine of the Trinity though? Because even if everything you said above is true, I feel it's unfair to say it's just a bunch of people blindly clinging to a cherished argument because they refuse to take all the Scriptures in a broad view, comparing Scripture with Scripture.
does violence to the manifest meaning of words.
Do you realize, that people that deny the pre-existence and deity of Christ, take four simple words "the Word was God" and say it doesn't mean the Word was God. Violence to the manifest meaning of words, brother? Yet that phrase is "easily explained away." Why don't we take the phrase "the cat was white" and then say the cat really is black, and then accuse the other side of "violence to the manifest meaning of words."
I have yet to get sound answers to literally dozens of issues I have raised in that very lengthy thread.
You want more than is necessarily to disprove your position. You want a Scripture that says things exactly as only you would accept them to say that thing. I understand that desire, but you can't convince me that it is necessarily for the Bible to prove a doctrine the only way that you personally would accept it to prove it. You can say "Well, I hardly can do otherwise," but that can only look to me like someone is perceiving Unitarianism "as only cherished dogma that can be rigidly clung to."
A person cannot expect to be taken seriously, when they insist that their explanation of Jesus' words "the Father is greater than I" is that "he was speaking from his standpoint as a human", and then turn around and say, "But when Jesus was raised and glorified, and he called his Father "his God", he didn't really mean it that way", or "Begotten, doesn't really mean what it sounds like it means" Really?! Is this what theology has reduced us to?
Let me just ask you straight up: Is there way that a being can be both God and man, yet not be a man? Yet that is what you want me to prove, that Christ was not a man. Every objection boils down to "But Christ was literally a man!" Every single one.
And another thing, no one has yet to tell me how a mental acknowledgement of this dogma makes them emulate Christ one whit better than the Christian that doesn't acknowledge this dogma. All I hear is that for some reason, this teaching is a touchstone of orthodoxy.
It has increased my patience for people who refuse to acknowledge what Scripture says :lol:. No, forgive me for joking on this matter, but I think I clearly showed that understanding that the work of the Trinity is the very basis for the power that transforms us into Christ in many, many ways, rather than a works religion where we hardly even need Jesus to die for us.

But I sort of understand where you are coming from, in that you feel, firstly, Trinitarians have mistreated you, secondly, they've insisted you believe something they can hardly defend themselves, thirdly, all that for a doctrine you feel doesn't help you personally. However, I do feel I've both shown massive Scriptural and logical evidence that was simply waved away with the hand and an appeal to "God is singular," and shown how it powerfully and practically applies in our faith in grace (the work of God on our behalf, instead of our own work to please God).

User avatar
jriccitelli
Posts: 1317
Joined: Tue Aug 02, 2011 10:14 am
Location: San Jose, CA
Contact:

Re: An Observation

Post by jriccitelli » Sun Mar 15, 2015 11:16 am

‘Thou shalt not write down thy principles, still less print them, lest thou shall be entrapped by them for all time’ (Editors quote)
Too late, you already did. And so did God, God said His Commands would be for all time and eternity.

You are free to say anything you want here, so why be vague? If you meant to imply this to the trinity you should have just said so. I never imply something unless I’m willing to say it straight.
The verse quoted directed that we observe the Mosaic Law. No, we do not observe it. Do you? (ED)
You now cornered yourself, why say you don’t have to observe the Commandments when Jesus has told even his disciples to do so, are the two greatest commandments in the verse quoted not to be observed either? 'Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whom he is like: 48 he is like a man building a house, who dug deep and laid a foundation on the rock" (Luke 6)
And, I and many other non-trinitarians can show hundreds of verses that show the opposite. Unfortunately, those verses are general explained away with some kind of logic(?) that does violence to the manifest meaning of words. (Editor)
And they all are in the context of His incarnation, and prior to His death and resurrection. It seems there are hundreds of verses, including those of Jesus, that tell us to keep The Law and commandments. If Jesus said to keep the Commandments, why don’t you then? You tell me we're having it both ways when we tell you the verses you use point out Jesus’ humanity during the incarnation, that is why they speak from His incarnate position. Yet I suppose your going to say we don’t do what Jesus told us to do because, why?
I have yet to get sound answers to literally dozens of issues I have raised in that very lengthy thread. There has been obfuscation, ignoring, and a repeated hammering on verses that have little to do with this doctrine. But no (to my mind) satisfactory answers. (ED)
I asked at the very beginning of two threads who is your Lord?
You know there is Only One Lord and God. Yet still you have not explained that ONE question. Or WHO, or WHAT you believe the pre-incarnate Jesus to be. Your response seems at best to be no he's not, no he's not.
And another thing, no one has yet to tell me how a mental acknowledgement of this dogma makes them emulate Christ one whit better than the Christian that doesn't acknowledge this dogma. All I hear is that for some reason, this teaching is a touchstone of orthodoxy. (ED)
It makes no wit to you if Jesus is God? It certainly seems to make a big whit to you since it seems you have been arguing against the thought profusely. The nature and person of God and Jesus is no big whit? What kind of position is that? If Jesus is God, He spoke throughout the whole Old Testament and His Words are His Word. He is The Same God then Whom we have always known, and the only God we were to ever know. He then who created The seas and parted the seas is the same One who calmed the seas. He caused a great flood to cover the Earth, He opened the Earth and it swallowed up thousands, and He is coming again. You must see the significance of that.

My observation is that it is not about the Trinity, it is about Who will judge the earth, the atonement, the commands and what is in store for those who disbelieve His Word and command, to believe. That is why people do not want to believe Jesus is THE LORD. This is not a touchstone, this is the Rock of Orthodoxy, and there is One Rock, and there is only One LORD.

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: An Observation

Post by TheEditor » Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:27 pm

Hi Dizerner,

First I'd like to ask, do you really think your quote applies to the doctrine of the Trinity though? Because even if everything you said above is true, I feel it's unfair to say it's just a bunch of people blindly clinging to a cherished argument because they refuse to take all the Scriptures in a broad view, comparing Scripture with Scripture.


Not necessarily, no. I think any idea could potentially become an example of what the quote was trying to say. But I believe that many good Christian men and women have believed the trinity in all good conscience, though I believe most don't give it a thought. They have just accepted it.

does violence to the manifest meaning of words.


Do you realize, that people that deny the pre-existence and deity of Christ, take four simple words "the Word was God" and say it doesn't mean the Word was God. Violence to the manifest meaning of words, brother?


Yes, at times we need to read past a very direct English translation/interpretation to understand what the text is saying. I do not say that there are not verses that seem to teach at least a Binatarian view of God. But, given the structure of the sentence and the totality of verses, I choose to understand the sentence as "In the beginning was the man. And Dizerner was with the man, and Dizerner was man" Not, "And Dizerner was the man." Trinitarians opt for the latter understanding.

I have yet to get sound answers to literally dozens of issues I have raised in that very lengthy thread.


You want more than is necessarily to disprove your position. You want a Scripture that says things exactly as only you would accept them to say that thing.


No I don't. I can accept the atonement and not have a verse that tells me specifically how the atonement works. But if someone tells me I need to accept the Moral Governanve theory of the atonement to have it apply, they better have just such verses. Trinitarians have nuanced their approach to the doctrine over the centuries due to arguments against it. At least the Catholics hold doggedly to the Nicene and Athenasian creeds. Those are much easier targets than moving ones. :lol:

but that can only look to me like someone is perceiving Unitarianism "as only cherished dogma that can be rigidly clung to."


I am not rigidly clinging to any. I have said frequently that I would describe myself (currently) as a non-trinitarian. But I would not use words like Unitarian or Arian to describe my Christological thinking.

Every objection boils down to "But Christ was literally a man!" Every single one
.

If it walks like a duck, then?

I think I clearly showed that understanding that the work of the Trinity is the very basis for the power that transforms us into Christ in many, many ways, rather than a works religion where we hardly even need Jesus to die for us.


I must have missed it. Please link your comments so that I can read them as I must have read over them.

But I sort of understand where you are coming from, in that you feel, firstly, Trinitarians have mistreated you, secondly, they've insisted you believe something they can hardly defend themselves, thirdly, all that for a doctrine you feel doesn't help you personally. However, I do feel I've both shown massive Scriptural and logical evidence that was simply waved away with the hand and an appeal to "God is singular," and shown how it powerfully and practically applies in our faith in grace (the work of God on our behalf, instead of our own work to please God).


I don't know that trinitarians have mistreated me any more than non-trinitarians. After all, I have been tried in the court of public opinion to be an apostate by my former place of fellowship--who are all Arians. However, with the exception of a few, once garden-variety Christians (at least the ones that believe they take it "seriously") find out that I am less than enthusiastic about their cherished ideas about God, it is made pretty clear that I need to get with the program.

I have not waved away anything with "God is singular". JR seems to be doing alot of that 'waving away' with the "Hear O Israel" underlining. By the way, I asked you in another thread if you were not possibly in fact a Modalist? Your expressions seem to be in keeping with that more. Thanks for the dialogue. :)

Regards, Brenden.
Last edited by TheEditor on Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:41 pm, edited 1 time in total.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
TheEditor
Posts: 814
Joined: Thu Sep 16, 2010 9:09 pm

Re: An Observation

Post by TheEditor » Sun Mar 15, 2015 3:41 pm

You are free to say anything you want here, so why be vague? If you meant to imply this to the trinity you should have just said so. I never imply something unless I’m willing to say it straight.


I do state this clearly (I think). But the comment was intended to provoke thought, and apparently it has.

The verse quoted directed that we observe the Mosaic Law. No, we do not observe it. Do you? (ED)


You now cornered yourself, why say you don’t have to observe the Commandments when Jesus has told even his disciples to do so, are the two greatest commandments in the verse quoted not to be observed either? 'Why do you call Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say? 47 “Everyone who comes to Me and hears My words and acts on them, I will show you whome is like a man building a house, who dug deepnd laid a foundation on the rock" (Luke 6)


Now you are being vague, JR. Are you a Seventh-Day Adventist? A Messianic Believer? This is news to me.

And, I and many other non-trinitarians can show hundreds of verses that show the opposite. Unfortunately, those verses are general explained away with some kind of logic(?) that does violence to the manifest meaning of words. (Editor)


And they all are in the context of His incarnation, and prior to His death and resurrection.


Not so. If trinitarians love to use Thomas' supplication "My Lord and My God" to prove Jesus is God (since humans have a god), why ignore Jesus statements post-resurrection to Mary Magdalene ("I go my way to Your God and My God") and post ascension in Revelation 3 ("The temple of My God")?

I have yet to get sound answers to literally dozens of issues I have raised in that very lengthy thread. There has been obfuscation, ignoring, and a repeated hammering on verses that have little to do with this doctrine. But no (to my mind) satisfactory answers. (ED)


I asked at the very beginning of two threads who is your Lord?
You know there is Only One Lord and God. Yet still you have not explained that ONE question. Or WHO, or WHAT you believe the pre-incarnate Jesus to be. Your response seems at best to be no he's not, no he's not.


As Perry Mason would say "Objection, asked and answered." ;) I've stated before, JR (but this is perhaps yet another thing you have read past) that I view my participation in this as that of a foil. I do not believe I am "saving" anyone by making them dump the trinity doctrine. I want them to see why others have a hard time with it, and maybe it can help them to be a little more accepting in the process.

And another thing, no one has yet to tell me how a mental acknowledgement of this dogma makes them emulate Christ one whit better than the Christian that doesn't acknowledge this dogma. All I hear is that for some reason, this teaching is a touchstone of orthodoxy. (ED)


It makes no wit to you if Jesus is God? It certainly seems to make a big whit to you since it seems you have been arguing against the thought profusely. The nature and person of God and Jesus is no big whit? What kind of position is that? If Jesus is God, He spoke throughout the whole Old Testament and His Words are His Word. He is The Same God then Whom we have always known, and the only God we were to ever know. He then who created The seas and parted the seas is the same One who calmed the seas. He caused a great flood to cover the Earth, He opened the Earth and it swallowed up thousands, and He is coming again. You must see the significance of that.


Reread my staement JR. Is this the care you bring to your reading of the Scriptures as well? I asked how it mattered one whit (amount, iota, jot) as to one's emulation of Jesus whether they acknowledge this dogma? By the way, JR, affirming the trinity apparently hasn't helped the majority in Christendom to see past the folly of Calvinism, or to see the God-dishonoring nature of Eternal Torment, or prevented good people from all nations from shooting people wearing uniforms from other countries. The bloodguilt is up to the bridles of the horses.

My observation is that it is not about the Trinity, it is about Who will judge the earth, the atonement, the commands and what is in store for those who disbelieve His Word and command, to believe. That is why people do not want to believe Jesus is THE LORD. This is not a touchstone, this is the Rock of Orthodoxy, and there is One Rock, and there is only One LORD.


God has committed all judgment to the Son. I will trust him to be fair. God does.

Regards, Brenden.
[color=#0000FF][b]"It was for freedom that Christ set us free; therefore keep standing firm and do not be subject again to a yoke of slavery."[/b][/color]

User avatar
Paidion
Posts: 5452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2008 10:22 pm
Location: Back Woods of North-Western Ontario

Re: An Observation

Post by Paidion » Sun Mar 15, 2015 5:58 pm

Brenden wrote:Franklin describes this sentiment as a singular instance in the history of mankind of modesty in a sect. . . . The Dunkers came close here to formulating a commandment about religious discourse: Thou shalt not write down thy principles, still less print them, lest thou shall be entrapped by them for all time.
If that's close to a Dunkers' commandment, it's a commandment that we would do well to observe. Perhaps then, there would be less division over non-essentials which are deemed to be essentials.
Paidion

Man judges a person by his past deeds, and administers penalties for his wrongdoing. God judges a person by his present character, and disciplines him that he may become righteous.

Avatar shows me at 75 years old. I am now 83.

Singalphile
Posts: 903
Joined: Sun Apr 22, 2012 12:46 pm

Re: An Observation

Post by Singalphile » Sun Mar 15, 2015 8:24 pm

TheEditor wrote:
Westcott was commenting on the general tend of people to be fanatical when they focus on one idea or in some cases a "gimmicky" view. Take for instance the myriad of sects that have built up over these past many centuries. Don't all of them begin with emphasis on some notion or idea that other churches perhaps have failed to notice? Sometimes the idea may be legitimate, sometimes it is a contrivance. Take as an example the person who says believers need to be immersed (maybe even three times) in order to be saved. They highlight one teaching, and sacrifice all else on this particular creedal alter. You may be right that certain types of people tend to lean this way. But I think part of it is codifying and writing down creedal statements. It puts me in mind of another quote in the autobiography of Benjamin Franklin as quoted by Neil Postman: ....
I like and sympathize with the motive, but I'm not sure if creedal statements are more of a source or more of a symptom of the problem.

There is potentially some pride in it, but I don't think it's immoral to have an opinion, and so there's nothing necessarily wrong with writing it down.

Paul describes the Corinthians' division/sectarianism as stemming from spiritual infancy and fleshliness (1 Cor 3:1-3ff).

I like 1 Cor 4:6, in which Paul seems to tell his readers "to learn by us not to go beyond what is written, that none of you may be puffed up in favor of one against another." (ESV) Paul several times instructs his readers to avoid empty talk, foolish controversies, vain discussions, and speculations.

So if we were all mature, then statements of opinion would be a nice way to achieve clarity and learn from each other. If someone disagrees, then that's fine; there's no need to dwell on it (unless you think the opinion makes them a non-Christian), but until then, perhaps creedal statements should only consist of quotes from the Bible. (If the Bible doesn't express my view as well as I think I can, then it's probably not a very important opinion anyway.)

Lastly, I guess that divisions do start with a focused disagreement on one idea. That is just inevitable, I guess. In the example you give (triple-immersion baptism), I guess I'd say, "That's your opinion, brother(s)/sister(s), and you're welcome to it. We'll baptize in that manner if that's what someone requests." But if the triple-immersion people (or non-triple immersion people) were to continue causing division or arguing about it, then they'd have to be warned about divisiveness, and if they still cause trouble, then Titus 3:11.

(Dunkers = interesting.)
... that all may honor the Son just as they honor the Father. John 5:23

Post Reply

Return to “The Trinity”