Post
by _Steve » Sat Mar 04, 2006 1:53 pm
I do not relish the task of deciding which debates do and which debates do not have a legitimate place in the body of Christ (though I definitely get a sense that some debates have gone on long enough, because all sides have presented their arguments, and nothing new—only more verbage— is being added).
If there was a debate going on here between a Jehovah's Witness and a Trinitarian, and the latter was clearly winning the debate, making the JW look ridiculous, most Trinitarians would think that the debate has a legitimate and welcome place in this forum.
Debate on such a topic would be quite like many of the debates held in the early church, including that which dominated the ecumenical council at Nicea. Most Christians who are Trinitarians believe that that one was a legitimate debate, and that it was useful to the church.
It seems to me that a similar debate is being conducted at these proceedings, and that it may have as much legitimacy here, or anywhere else, as it had at Nicea. I may be mistaken in this judgment, but I can't see why it should be otherwise.
What may make some of us Trinitarians uncomfortable here is that an alternative view is being articulately presented without it being made to look utterly foolish. It is not being decisively trounced upon by the Trinitarians. Is this a bad thing? Or is it an opportunity for Trinitarians to hear a well-articulated alternative, to consider its merits, and (if unconvinced) to become aware of the kind of arguments that may need to be answered by us in such a debate?
Since there were sincere Christians who held Arian views for several hundred years, I am not sure that I am in the position to tell them that they can no longer do so in the twenty-first century. I may think them wrong, but to exclude them from the debate, or from Christian fellowship, would seem to be taking too much upon myself.
If Christians defend the Trinity merely by appeal to human creeds, and not scripture, then we ought to look ascance upon their arguments. Likewise, if non-trinitarians defend their position by appeal to authorities less than scripture, we might well disrespect their arguments. However, when either position appeals to scripture for their arguments, and does so out of an honest and intelligent inquiry into the truth of the matter, then the debate is being conducted by appeal to the highest authority, and I, for one, will listen.
I have said that I do not agree with Paidion's position—but I do not disrespect him or his means of arguing his points. He and I interpret certain scriptures differently from one another, but we both are committed to scriptural authority. He does not appear to be blindly following some teacher or organization in knee-jerk loyalty (like a cultist does), but appears to have thought carefully to an original position from scripture.
I have not answered his every post, because, having stated my position early-on, and having read nothing in the interrim that convincingly debunks it (to my mind, at least), I don't feel compelled jump in every time someone disagrees and repeat myself—as some (who apparently have more time on their hands than I have) like to do.
I believe that my views of the Trinity have been clearly stated earlier in this forum, that my argument is valid, and that controversy may be permitted to swirl around my arguments without necessarily unseating them. If my stated position is flawed, it is at least the best I can do at my present stage of understanding. I am willing to hear arguments for as many different points of view as seem to be defensible from scripture. If my present views are correct, it will not hurt me if they are assailed by inferior arguments. If I am currently incorrect, then superior arguments may correct me or help me to refine my position.
Though I have not met Paidion (and do not even know his real identity, except that he is Santa Claus' son), my judgment from what he has posted is that he does not in any way dishonor or discount the Lordship of Jesus Christ. This makes me regard him as a brother on equal footing with myself in terms of freedom to read the scriptures for himself and draw his own conclusions.
That doesn't mean I think all of his conclusions to be correct, but I do not stand in a position above him that entitles me to forbid him to hold them (as I am also very happy that no man but Christ stands above me in this capacity to dictate what I must believe).
Paidion champions a number of positions that I have historically debated against, but none that I know to be impossible to be held by a disciple of Jesus, nor any that seem to represent debates that have no place in the body of Christ.
This is simply my judgment. No one has appointed me to decide for the body of Christ what arguments they should or should not engage in, and I may be drawing the line in the wrong place. I hope that my decisions about what to allow here at the forum may not displease God or offend His people.
The only arguments I have ever curtailed or banned from this forum have been those in which the arguing party showed contempt for scripture or for the persons with whom he/she was debating. The principles of reverence for scripture and the love of the brethren definitely define the boundaries of this discussion forum, to me. For the most part, I think the participants here stay pretty well within these boundaries.
The bottom line is that I am glad for Allyn's passion to uphold the deity of Christ for the honor of God—as I myself seek to do. But the honor of God is well-served (in my opinion) by hearing from many thinking Christians who may challenge and stretch our present understanding. Some of them may turn out to be right, and we will have grown from our having heard them. Others will no doubt be wrong, and may themselves be nudged closer to the truth by our contributions.
What is so liberating for me was coming to the realization that I don't have to reach any particular conclusions about most of these issues—even in my lifetime—in order to live a life pleasing to God. I enjoy debating any issue of truth, but I do so only because I would rather believe truth than a lie (more truth makes you more free), not because I believe it necessary for me or my opponent to necessarily understand every issue correctly.
In any case, I would be loath to say that debate has no place among the seekers of truth. Many years ago I gave up my self-appointed role as official definer of orthodoxy. These days, I allow many statements with which I disagree to be posted without my feeling the need immediately to jump into the fray, for several reasons:
1) My disagreement with them is not so great, or the issue not so central to that of Christian discipleship, as to require any correction from me;
2) I want others here to have the opportunity to spar, without my interference...and many do so;
3) I want to reflect upon them, rather than immediately refuting them, in case the presenter may be seeing something more clearly than I do.
In Jesus,
Steve
