Trinity.

[darinhouston]

I know who they are but what sincere inquiry did he fail to reply to?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[TheEditor]

Hi Darrin,

I see the trouble. It's in how I phrased my answer. The "didn't reply" was in reference to his manner of reply, not the content. He "didn't reply" with the kind of dogmatic insistence you would think he would if he believed it (the trinity) was a non-negotiable teaching. His response (and again, I don't have it straight from the horse's mouth, but I trust the sources) was that he (Bruce) didn't feel comfortable pressing the point as an essential because he knew that there could be some question to sincere students. If you have read much of Bruce you will note that he steers quite clear of issues such as the trinity and hellfire/immortal soul, and when he does touch on them, it is quite different from when certain other teachers do. This tells me quite alot.

When I was making my mental exodus from the WT Organization, I carefully listened to how the various brothers spoke, both from the platform as well as in private conversation. When they avoided certain "buzzwords" or "JW-speak", I used to wonder if they were really marching in lock-step with orthodoxy. I believe a similar conclusion can be drawn when reading Bible commentators.

Regards, Brenden.

[jriccitelli]

Brenden, this is precisely the reason I have ceased to respond to any of his posts’ (Paidion)

Paidion, that is absolute baloney. I have been doing nothing but responding to Brenden’s and your posts. I respond to your posts even when you aren’t responding. The main reason I post here at Theos is a response to your posts, and that I noticed the sheer profusion of your posts, many parroting your continual doctrine and your covert ‘Enabling grace’ ‘Begotten god’ ‘Saved from sin'…etc.)

I for one, originally was defending Steve’s answer in the OP, as I am not very concerned nor think the Oneness doctrine is blasphemy, the question ‘was asked was whether Oneness believers could be Christians?’ on the radio program call.

‘The issue raised in the original post (and the only issue I have been addressing) is whether belief in the trinity is necessary for salvation’ (Steve, June 5)

I did not really enter or care to enter the discussion until page 8, and I again objected to something John had said, no one else. I did not say anything on here until page 10, and then I was only answering my friend and Trinitarian Homer about something:

Homer's point was that if all three are "fully God" even outside the confines of the "godhead" (the Creeds state the Jesus was "fully God and fully Man") then how could this not mean that there are Three Gods?

And my first question to the you was because I felt you and Paidion had given me an incomplete answer to:

Like I asked on the other thread; Who do you call Lord?’ (Me, here, June 19)

I then noticed how this thread was going, rebuking Trinitarian beliefs, and not because of the OP. I responded because the non-Trinitarian camp was throwing mud at the Trinitarian doctrine from page one. And yet this was not the intention of the original OP. So it was not me attacking the non-Trins, all I am doing is answering the same questions and assertions the non-Trins had brought up:

Please tell me how your walk with Christ is enhanced by an apprehension of the trinity doctrine’ (Brenden, Page 1, June 2)

‘Funny that you talk about how the Trinity is a Biblical doctrine, but then quote the Nicene Creed, which, like the Bible, does not contain the word Trinity’ (Candlepower, Page 1, June 2)

‘The Nicene Creed of 325 in its original form also said "begotten before all ages." Do you believe that also? I do. But though the first Trinitarians accepted it, the later Trinitarians recognized the contradiction, and changed the wording to "eternally begotten" (Paidion, Page 1, June 2)

‘John, do you believe Jesus had the same power as the Father at the time He stated his subordination? ‘When so many God fearing people in History have held conflicting and firmly held views which have divided the church, it is a flashing red flag to me that Truth is probably missing in all of them and that is where we should look desperately to cling to mystery’ (Darin, Page 1, June 2)

And what is it about this particular theology that makes it life-saving? If this notion were so crucial, wouldn't it be emblazened upon every page of Scripture, rather than having to be doped out by people in piece-meal fashion? (Brenden, June 4)

You gave me what I thought a sincere, heart-felt answer. But I don't know that the answer you gave for why it nurtures you, works for me. And, I suspect that there are many others for whom it wouldn't work. That is meant in no way to denigrate your position, just to state the facts’ (Brenden, June 5)

John, the original poster responded to you right away Brenden, and in defense of the Trinity and Jesus, not because of Steve’s post, but because others brought it up. And he explained why he felt some were lost ‘because they are misinformed about the identity of Christ’.

John answered you twice directly the same day, received 4 more posts, one from Paidion, and 3 from Steve, and then you critise John (as you did me) the following day for not responding to more questions! Although it had hardly been 12 hours since your last questions! (Your post: 12:01pm June 5, your statement that he did not answer you at 1:13am June 6) John did respond to all three of Steve Gregg's posts within that time (and that is the one he originally was corresponding with)!

‘So would you say that this would be the case with all "who disbelieve the Trinity"? Are they disqualified from eternal life? ‘And how about those who disbelieve that the only-begotten Son was begotten or generated by God "before all ages" as the early Christians taught? And that's most modern Christians’ (Paidion. June 5)

‘However, I am amazed that you feel the trinity doctrine would "clarify things" for believers such as myself, who have issues with it. What exactly do you mean by that? Since you apparently have not seen fit to respond to either of my previous two posts to you’ (The Editor. June 6)

‘I would hate to flush the trinity down the toilet just because we don’t know how to be kind and careful with words’ (Me, page 8)

[TheEditor]

Hi JR,

You seem to be concerned about a matter. In addition, your reading of the thread is in error. The trinity was indeed brought up in the OP and was the crux of the whole conversation (Notice the name of the thread?) In the original post, John316yes was very dogmatic in his question. He did not ask why Steve was apparently "soft" on the trinity; his question was:

John asked of Steve:

You say you believe in the Trinity why not fight for it? Instead you're passive....These doctrines are important for a true understanding about God: The Father, The Son, The Holy Spirit. You must defend these doctrines.

JR wrote:

John answered you twice directly the same day, received 4 more posts, one from Paidion, and 3 from Steve, and then you critise John (as you did me) the following day for not responding to more questions! Although it had hardly been 12 hours since your last questions! (Your post: 12:01pm June 5, your statement that he did not answer you at 1:13am June 6) John did respond to all three of Steve Gregg's posts within that time (and that is the one he originally was corresponding with)!

JR, you surprise me. You bother to look at the date and time stamp on posts to pick apart the fact that I said John didn't respond to my posts, but fail to ascertain why. Here we have a prima facie example of what I am talking about. You bothered to wrest out of context what I said in an effort to paint me as a "mud-slinger" and yet I should trust your method of Biblical exegesis? Here is how it went down my friend:

I replied:

Please tell me how your walk with Christ is enhanced by an apprehension of the trinity doctrine. I ask in sincerity, please, no glib responses

John responded:

Understanding the Trinity helped me see that God wasn't a contradiction, when I understood this it helped me believe more than I did, it helped me relax. Becoming a Christian wasn't all that ridiculous as most of my professors and fellow students assumed, the Trinity helped make sense of things, but Doctrines like the Oneness Doctrine had me doubt.

I hope that helps.

To which I responded:

HI John.

Thanks for the heartfelt response. I can appreciate that you found some way of understanding (however possible that may be) God within this doctrine's framework. My position on this for some time now is this; I believe that if one is trying to be a disciple in all sincerity, God is likely going to cut a wide berth. I am sure that the perfect Son of God encountered all manner of error, stupidity and misapprehension, and that even in his disciples. Yet he loved them still.

I also went on to say this to John:

I started my conversation with you by asking why you felt the trinity was an important doctrine, and how it helped in your walk with Christ. You gave me what I thought a sincere, heart-felt answer. But I don't know that the answer you gave for why it nurtures you, works for me. And, I suspect that there are many others for whom it wouldn't work. That is meant in no way to denigrate your position, just to state the facts.

My very tepid criticism of John for "not responding" had nothing to do with "time" it had to do with "content". He continued to give answers to things I didn't ask. I realize you jumped into the conversation late, but this thread has gone way beyond the OP, so for you to jump back to the OP and get all defensive appears a bit bizarre. You also fail to sense the spirit in which my conversation was with John originally, despite the fact he is a Calvinist with a paradigm that you likely strongly disagree with. I treated him with respect. Others told him he was 'in over his head'.

Regards, Brenden.

[Singalphile]

Good observation, but I don't think it's symmetrical. I think this is what largely distinguishes most of the non-trinitarians from most of the trinitarians I've come across. From my perspective, it seems that the "agnostics" are rebelling against the existing taxonomy of the stalwarts/dogmatists. The problem is that John does seem to be telling us something here about the nature of God, and so the struggle to understand it seems reasonable in light of its glaring but (to many) opaque purpose. So, we do need to have the dialogue but with much charity and grace and without dogma.

Fair enough. John 1 is telling us something about the nature of Jesus, and I agree that anyone who reads that needs to process the words. I don't fault anyone for wanting to understand it all. Still, the various "isms" go a bit too far for me in trying to define God in sort of a biological sense, I think.

It is said Satan has better doctrine than any of us, yet the worst heart. It's a fair point to look at the other side, and realize that the study of God's nature can be a cold formal study. But because I can give to the poor to feel better about myself, that doesn't make giving a bad thing. Doing anything with a wrong heart and intentions is bad, Scripture even says worship itself can have a wrong heart, and surely we can say that's a very important thing. God gave us his Word to know him, and studying it to understand him is something you could never convince me is an inherently bad thing. You take the example of knowing physical attributes as not knowing the real person; I agree. However if I wrote what was important to me about myself to someone, and they didn't pay attention or try to understand, how is that them valuing me as a person?

Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.

There's always two sides to every coin. It's not like I am just speculating about things that might be, I will defend the Trinity doctrine with Scripture alone, and I will do it all day. I find that if you take Trinitarian passages at all seriously you can't just explain away the Spirit as a force or the Son as only a human: a serious student of Scripture simply cannot do that honestly.

I have some thoughts in response:

1. I can't see any necessarily good or bad motive in affirming tri/bi/modal/etc-ism. Those are assertions without any inherent practical application, as I see it. God's character, His likes and dislikes, and His commands and instructions are what He wants us to know as gauged by what He clearly tells us. I don't think God is very honored, if at all, by our philosophizing about Him.

2. I don't think you can explain or defend trinitarianism with scripture alone, and I do think it's speculative. If the Bible teaches trinitarianism, then the Bible is a poor teacher. Example: Here's wikipedia teaching trinitarianism. The first short paragraph explains trinitarianism more directly and clearly than any passage of Scripture. What do you make of that?

I would say that the Bible is not a poor teacher because the Bible does not teach trinitarianism. Not because it's wrong. It's just not something that God has cared to ever explain (as far as we know).

3. For the record, I don't think that trinitarianism is false. I just don't think we should regard it as some essential truth and one of the tests of a true Christian. (And I don't think anyone here thinks the latter, anyway.)

Thank you.

Here's an interesting practical case:

Christian health sharing plans have been mentioned here. I looked into Medi-Share to see how it would work. I noticed this:

Adult Members profess the following Statement of Faith to qualify for Medi-Share membership:

• I believe that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4) eternally existing in three Persons: the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). ....

(There is more to it, but that's enough.) The reference to God as "three Persons" is not biblical. Why should a Christian affirm that? I don't deny it. I would have to get some clarification on what they mean by it. Even then, I might have to just say that I'm committed to accepting everything the Bible has to say about God and Christ and the Holy Spirit, as best as I can understand it, and just leave it at that.

(I might mention that John said that, "whoever confesses that Jesus is the Son of God, God abides in him, and he in God, " and Paul said that "if you confess with your mouth that Jesus is Lord and ... that God raised him from the dead, you will be saved.")

This is not to judge Medi-Share. I don't know their process. My point is just that extra-Biblical tests of orthodoxy have negative consequences.
1) They feed into creedalism and the notion that Christianity is mostly about philosophy and theological propositions and having the right opinions.
2) This necessarily leads to divisions and sectarianism in the Church.
3) And it leads to a de-emphasis of Christ-like living and servitude.

In my opinion, whether we're in the majority or minority camp, we need to learn to keep our opinions to ourselves and just stick with biblical language. Our knowledge (or lack thereof) is nothing compared to the love we demonstrate (John 13:35, 1 Cor 13).

[TheEditor]

Those who honor me I will honor, but those who despise me will be disdained.

For the record, I don't think that trinitarianism is false. I just don't think we should regard it as some essential truth and one of the tests of a true Christian. (And I don't think anyone here thinks the latter, anyway.)

John says something else in his Gospel that is important:

"Now this is the basis for judgment, that the light has come into the world but men have loved the darkness rather than the light, for their works were wicked.  For he that practices vile things hates the light and does not come to the light, in order that his works may not be reproved.  But he that does what is true comes to the light, in order that his works may be made manifest as having been worked in harmony with God." (John 3:19-21)

How does this tie into any particular theological view of God? And yet this is the basis for judgment.

Here's an interesting practical case:

I looked into Medi-Share to see how it would work. I noticed this:

Adult Members profess the following Statement of Faith to qualify for Medi-Share membership:

• I believe that there is only one God (Deuteronomy 6:4) eternally existing in three Persons: the Father, Jesus Christ the Son, and the Holy Spirit (Matthew 28:19). ....

To my mind this is a big problem. I can guarantee you without hesitation that there are probably Medi-share members that profess the trinty, but are serial adulterers. Go figure.

Regards, Brenden.

[Homer]

Got a question. We repeatedly read in the scriptures of the "Kingdom of God", theos in each case. If Jesus is not God, how is it He is the King?

[dizerner]

Got a question. We repeatedly read in the scriptures of the "Kingdom of God", theos in each case. If Jesus is not God, how is it He is the King?

When people are saying the default reading of Col. 1:16-17 leads people to Socinianism, you have to believe there are blinders on people's eyes, Homer. Think about this verse:

...the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ...

This veil separated the holy of holies, the very dwelling of God. Why is it only removed in Christ?

[Jose]

Got a question. We repeatedly read in the scriptures of the "Kingdom of God", theos in each case. If Jesus is not God, how is it He is the King?

It's God's Kingdom, but Jesus has been granted full authority to rule over it, and once the last enemy is defeated, Jesus will hand the Kingdom to God and will himself be subject to Him, so that God will be all in all. 1 Cor 15:20-28.

[Jose]

There's always two sides to every coin. It's not like I am just speculating about things that might be, I will defend the Trinity doctrine with Scripture alone, and I will do it all day. I find that if you take Trinitarian passages at all seriously you can't just explain away the Spirit as a force or the Son as only a human: a serious student of Scripture simply cannot do that honestly.

And

When people are saying the default reading of Col. 1:16-17 leads people to Socinianism, you have to believe there are blinders on people's eyes, Homer. Think about this verse:

...the same veil remains unlifted, because it is removed in Christ...

This veil separated the holy of holies, the very dwelling of God. Why is it only removed in Christ?

So, first you say that anyone that doesn't come to the same conclusion that you have regarding "Trinitarian passages" is approaching scripture dishonestly, and now you seem to be saying (by misapplying 2 Cor 3:14) that to interpret Col 1:16-17 a certain way is to be blinded. That's amazing! You seem to have a special ability to dizern people's spiritual status.