dizerner wrote:Jose wrote: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.
dizerner wrote:
I disagree that it's a "special" ability. My whole point is you could have it too!
Jose I said there is some room for disagreement and mystery in a lot of ideas, and you don't seem to acknowledge that in this post. What I said was there were some concepts so clear as to be non-negotiable. I would think you are not so ambiguous about the Bible, that you have some doctrine somewhere that you think is clear enough that if someone disagreed with it they would truly be disagreeing with Scripture? Perhaps you are in the camp of "anything goes" I don't know. Then you say I misapply 2 Cor. 3:14. It would be neat if you'd actually explain why... it doesn't seem like too much to ask, and kind of a cheap shot to not explain yourself.
Of course I would say that to interpret certain clear verses as
not saying what they
say is to be blinded? I mean we could just take your arguments and use them concerning Paul speaking of the Jews. Paul is saying he has a "special" ability to say the Jews don't interpret the Old Testament right! That's amazing! How dare he? You think it's a coincidence most Jews don't like Paul even today
. And I virtually take Paul's
exact same argument and say I agree with it! That's amazing too! How dare we make truth claims, who do we think we are to "dizern" what a verse says. I hope you can see that your post just comes across as a bit of a "spin" piece, because you make me say things in a way I really didn't quite say them, and you also seem to advocate hardcore skepticism which you surely can't expect me to agree with.
dizerner,
My comment about you having a special ability to "dizern" was first, a word play on your user name, and second, a tongue in cheek approach to criticize you for saying what you said. I'm not spinning anything. What you said is there for anybody to read, and I'm not the only one that has taken issue with it. You seem to think that "trinitarian passages" are so obviously clear and that anyone who sees it differently than you do is being dishonest with the text. Are trinitarians the only ones who study seriously and deal honestly with scripture? How could you possibly know the depth of someone's honesty as they pray to God for his guidance in trying to understand these things?
Naturally, there are things in scripture that are clear enough for even a child to grasp; things that we could rightly judge to be true or false, but the things you think are clear might not be so to others. Perhaps you may have acknowledged in the past that there is wiggle room for disagreement, but there was no need for me to acknowledge that in this post, because in your statements that I quoted, you seem to not be allowing for any disagreement at all.
2 Cor 3 is comparing the fading glory of the ministry of death (the law) with the surpassing glory of the new covenant and life in the spirit, and the veil is removed when they (the Jews) turn from the law to Christ. I said you misapplied 2 Cor 3:14 because it's not talking about people being blinded because they wrongly interpret something. I don't think it's right for you to say that people are blinded simply because you don't agree with them.
Are there clear teachings that a person could be at odds with? Certainly. Here's an example of what I consider to be a clear statement: "Hear O Israel, YHWH is our God, YHWH is one." I believe that's easy enough for anyone to understand and embrace. I also take it very seriously, especially since Jesus said that it is the foremost commandment. On the other hand, you and millions of others believe that YHWH is three. They way I see it, you are disagreeing with a very clear statement. Does that mean that you are blinded because you interpret that verse differently than I do? What if I said that you aren't taking it seriously or that you aren't being honest with the text?
You accused me of taking a cheap shot because I said something without explaining what I meant. Can you please explain what you mean when you now accuse me of "advocating hardcore skepticism?"
One more thing. On 02/09/15, you said:
"As for Scriptural support, I guess like the Trinity it's a continual inference, never a clearly stated thing."
More recently you said:
"I will defend the Trinity doctrine from Scripture alone, and I will do it all day."
Do you think the Trinity is clearly stated in scripture or not?
